Questions and answers
Here are different pages :
If you hesitate about your job
And more questions and answers below :
Who created Molecular Gastronomy ?
Indeed the real story is that when I met Nicholas, we were immediately intimate friends, because we shared the same passion for science and cooking. After my call, on the phone, he decided to come the next week to Paris, and we shared a wonderful « poule au vin jaune et aux morilles », at Chez Maître Paul, in Paris.
Then, we exchanged almost daily, so much indeed that my boss at Pour la Science was angry at me for this.
But we went on, he came frequently, and at some point, we discussed both the organization of a workshop, and also of a « society ».
I remember very well that he advised not to do the society « now », but we decided for the workshop.
Had he had other discussions about that elsewhere ? I don’t know, but what I know that in my office at Pour la Science, we decided to call Zichichi (from Pour la Science ; if proofs are needed, one should look to phone bills !).
Zichichi was not in, so that we wrote him a letter, that Nicholas signed alone. I have probably the answer by Zichichi in files.
This answer said that if we could prove that top scientists would come (let’s say Nobel prize winners), then he would be OK. As I know very well Pierre Gilles de Gennes (he is dead, but his widow Anne Marie could confirm), I called him, and he agreed to come. Then we had other positive answers from many people.
For the organization, we did it both alone. All the letters sent by one of us were shared by the other.
Concerning Harold, as we wanted an international meeting, and as Nicholas was visitiing professors at some US univerisities, and as he knew Liz (she was really cute, not scientist at all by the way) and Harold, we decided to ask Harold to be a relay for the US.
But all the participants can tell you that Nicholas and I did all the work… and this is why we were both directors of the « school », Harold being an invited director for the first meeting. As his involvement was not needed and his work limited, we did not ask him for the second one.
I have all the papers of that probably.
Then, yes, Nicholas and I are the fathers, or creators of Molecular Gastronomy.
Yes it is science : and the proof is my PhD (Nicholas was in the jury, by the way, and I was my own director)
Yes Liz was very charming, and kind. But she did not do anything in the organization of the meetings.
And the US people should not forget that the « prehistory of molecular gastronomy » is full of people that tried things but did not create the real science that Molecular Gastronomy is now. If you can read French (and you can) have a look to the paper that I did on Pomiane, for example.
What does molecular gastronomy mean to you as a scientist, or as a chef if you cook?
Molecular gastronomy should mean someone to me in particular. It means the same for everybody: the scientific discipline looking for the mechanisms of phenomena occurring during culinary processes. Nothing else.
The question is as strange as if I was asked: what does a cat mean for you, as a scientist, or as a chef if you cook.
And by the way, even when I cook (daily, at home, for all evening dinners plus meals of the week ends), I am not a chef, but I remain a scientist, and a scientist that cooks. The same when I am walking: I remain a scientist, and a scientist that walks.
How was your relationship with Nicholas Kurti( Kürti Miklós)?
It was a "love affair", immediate friendship that began as soon as we spoke on the phone, in 1986. After some seconds, he decided to come to Paris and see me, and we had this wonderful meal together, when we shared a "poule au vin jaune et aux morilles", at Maitre Paul, rue Racine, in the Quartier Latin of Paris. Immediately, we decided that we could share our results, thoughts, experiments... He was 50 years older than me, but we behaved as friends, and he was certainly not my tutor. Only a friend.
We shared everything: when I was invited as honoris causa in a university, I asked him to be along, and when he was proposed to write a text, we did it both (generally, I was writing the first draft, and he was improving it).
We did everything in a wonderful harmony, experiments on soufflés, on vinegar, organizing the Erice workshops... We spoke on the phone daily, and when I was making an experiment in Paris, he repeated it in London. He was a very good physicist, and I learned a lot from him in this regard, whereas he got much from me in chemistry, of which he did not know much.
Can I do fruit caviars from agar-agar? Or is it just like gelatine but the vegetable matter of it?
You probably means "alginate pearls" with a liquid core, and for this, you need... sodium alginate. But it's true that I showed decades ago how to make it with gelatin: my solution is displayed on the internet site of Pierre Gagnaire. And I guess that I could also find a solution with agar-agar.
Do you think that molecular gastronomy will be the future or not because it needs some hardly available items for it, or like liquid nitrogen. So will it be available in a normal kitchen or just for the best Restaurants?
You confuse molecular gastronomy (science) and note by note cooking. Molecular gastronomy is spreading in universities all over the world. And note by note is spreading in restaurants of all the world. But there are many answers about this elsewhere.
And note by note cooking will be able to used more and more common ingredients (remember this word: just as carrot and meat are ingredients of traditional cooking, pure compounds are the ingredients of note by note cooking).
Do you teach molecular gastronomy?
Yes, in a lot of contexts.
- in the Erasmus Mundus Plus Master Programme "Food Innovation and Product Design"
- in the IPP Master Programme of AgroParisTech
- at the Ecoles des Mines de Paris
- at AgroParisTech, in the context of the Courses of Molecular Gastronomy
- and others
Can you explain the concept of DSF in the most simplest form possible?
The idea is that a dish is generally made of parts which are « colloidal system s», also called « disperse sytems ». The simplest of such systems are gels, emulsions, foams, aerosols, suspensions.
For example, when you make an emulsion such as mayonnaise, you whip oil into a liquid phase. The oil is dispersed in this aqueous phase (from the egg yolk, 50% water, and from the vinegar, up to 90 % water) under the form of oil droplets.
A foam : you know well what it is since you are very young, when you make a foam with soap in your bath : air bubbles are dispersed into water.
Gels are slightly more complex, because they are many varieties, but indeed gels are made of a liquid dispersed in a solid : think of a gelatin gel.
Aerosols : mist, for example, with tiny water droplets dispersed in a gas (air)
Suspensions : when painters « grind » their colors, for example using titane dioxide (a white powder), that they really grind with mortar and pestle into oil: mineral particles are then dispersed into oil.
All this is fine, and easy. Sometimes chefs confuse emulsions and foams however, but a foam is a foam, and an emulsion is an emulsion.
Now, when we move to real food, systems are more complex, and there are more than 3 phases. For example, when you make a béarnaise, you have a liquid phase (reduction of vinegar, egg yolk, water from butter, water from shallots), in which are dispersed oil droplets (melted butter) and also egg aggregates (because you cook). This is a « emulsion+suspension », and you see that words become more complex, even for such a simple sauce.
This is was it was proposed initially to use symbols instead of words, as it is common in science. W for water (any liquid containing water : coffee, stock, wine, fruit juices...), O for oil (any melted fat), S for solids, G for gases.
The dispersion of objects was described using operators, such as / for random dispersion. For example, a mayonnaise has a formula O/W, oil disperse in water. Other operators are + (coexistence of two phases), @ (inclusion), σ (superspoition), x (intermixing).
Then it was observed that it was useful to add information under the form of the « dimension » of objects. Here dimension does not mean size, but the number of parameters that you need to describe a system. For exemple, a dot has dimension 0, a line has dimension 1, a sheet dimension 3, and a volume dimension 3.
Using these new D0, D1, D2, D3 variables, one can easily describe any disperse systems.
Again for mayonnaise : D0(O)/D3(W).
Of course, description was not the sole goal of this work. Scientific questions were the basis, but it's true that formula can help you imagine and make many new systems. In other words, formalism is helpful for technology (innovation, creativity...)
How was this type of formula created?
The formalism was introduced for the first time in 2002, at a major European Conference on interface and surface science, but it was slowly improved.
How can it be applied in gastronomy?
First let me tell you (sorry) that it is not applied in gastronomy, but rather in cooking !
Gastronomy is a knowledge, according to Brillat-Savarin. Cuisine is the activity of producing food.
Can it be used in the kitchen? or is it meant just for the lab?
It is very easy to use in the kitchen, and we had many opportunities to work with chefs in order to help them to create new textures, new systems. Even better, the formalism was introduced in French pastry textbooks for beginners.
The idea is simply that if you choose a formula at random, you can make it !
Moreover, it is useful to help people understand what they do in the kitchen... instead of just repeating as in the Middle Age;-)
Can you please give me maybe two or three basic examples of recipes written using this system and explain how each one works?
The best example was a huge work done many years ago, of studying the structure of all (451) traditional French sauces. After a long study, using mainly optical microscopy, it was shown that these sauces are of 23 categories (23 different formula).
When these sauces were ranked by order of complexity, it appeared that some easy kinds were missing, like (G+(W/S1))/S2, which simply means a foamy bechamel.
By the way, it is easy to make, but why wasn't it introduced before ? The answer seems that the number of categories of sauces increased with time (another work), because of the empirical development of culinary techniques.
But of course, today you can write down any formula... and make any new system.
By the way, I should add that this DFS is very important for the future devleopment of Note by Note cuisine, because the issue of consistencies has to be considered.
I forgot : in order to show that DSF was useful for chefs, I began using dice (the « random » function of a computer) for creating a formula, for a dish that I named a Faraday, which was performed by Pierre Gagnaire (see his internet site)
What are the benefits of using DSF/CDS?
Please use only DSF, and forget CDS.
Then, the benefits are given above (I hope).
Is there anything you would like to add?
I said that DSF will be important for Note by Note Cuisine, and I have to say more about it. Note by note cuisine means using compounds to make dishes, which means that the fixed shape of objects (a potato, a steak) does not exist.
In this regard, the cook now has do create all aspects of dishes, such as shapeS (yes, shapes, and not shape : as a dish is preferably made of many parts, having different shapes), consistencies, colors, tastes, odors, etc.
For the issue of consistencies, what you perceive when you eat depends on the physical organization of the various parts... and indeed of the colloidal structure of dishes. This is why it is fine to use this system in order to investigate rationnally the various possibilities. In my book recently published, I am giving the whole set of possibilities for two objects (indeed, if you consider 3, it means one group of 2 and one group of 1, which means 1+1).
Another point : now, no new sauce can be patented... as all possibilities are included in DSF (and I am asking no royalties). So that free development of cuisine can be achieved.
Another one : if the number of possibilities is infinite, it means that the question of innovation is solved, or rather that the real question is not of « inventing » a new system, but rather choosing one that you will make, among the infinite number of possibities given by DSF.
Scientifically, we now have a tool for studying the relationship between formula and their physical and chemical properties.
How would you explain the term ‘molecular gastronomy ‘to high school students who have no background knowledge of the term?
First molecular gastronomy is a part of sciences of nature. Which means that we are trying to make scientific discoveries, such as oxygen, inertia, quantum mechanics, or Higgs boson.
Of course, in the case of molecular gastronomy, there is no hope to discover the Higgs boson, because we are focusing on an energy scale which is between van der Waals forces and 400 °C (OK, this should be in terms of joules, but it is because I want to explain, as you said “for student”).
What can we discover ?
For example, when we study carrot stocks, we are focusing on the particular mechanisms through which plant tissues can exchange with their environment, when cell walls are disrupted.
More generally, in this direction, I am interested on how compounds are exchanged between colloidal systems and their environment. Are there classes of exchanges ? How to compare them ?
Or, in another research line, I am interested in how chemical compounds present in food are changed during culinary processes, in particular in aqueous medium at 100°C for long times (hours). Indeed, this is a big issue, as food thermally treated has its inside at 100 °C maximum, and cooking times can be long. Imagine that organic compounds are transformed into others: this would be organic chemistry in water, from edible compounds, i.e. more or less “green chemistry”.
Finally, you see: in this field, no cooking ! Only physical chemistry, and the more fundamental the better (for me).
Of course there are many other possibilities. As I showed that cooking has technical, art and social component, studies can be done in these three fields.
What are your thoughts of using molecular gastronomy as a teaching tool for high school students?
Indeed it was always my idea that cooking should not be taught as recipes, as recipes make the cook like a machine. I proposed to reintroduce culinary lessons at school, but only in relationship with science, and with knowledge in particular. For example, in France children at school learn how to make liters and liters of whipped egg white from only one egg white. The world record, to my knowledge, is 40 liters.
There are many benefits in having molecular gastronomy (under this name, or not named) in the educational system, at any level, from school up to university. In particular, people can cook. Then they can be happy to learn science and other matters... because they can see how useful it is. Then they can learn the difference between technique, technology, science, art...
Then...
Do you think learning chemistry through contextual learning is more beneficial than just learning by writing facts and theories?
Yes I do think so, and this tested idea is at the foundation of a modification of the curriculum in France, again.
But about teaching, I am very cautious, because the best educational method can be bad when poorly used, whereas the worst method can become wonderful in wonderful hands. Indeed, teaching is technique, art, and social link (a very long story that I cannot develop here).
What are the benefits of understanding the basics of chemistry?
All your life includes chemistry, or more precisely the result of chemistry : cosmetics, drugs, food, painting, varnishes... If some people fear pesticides, this is because they don't understand what compounds are. And they don't understand that grilling meat is making more more dangerous compounds than pesticides! You cannot vote for laws if you don't understand chemistry, at the XXIrst century. But again, this could make a whole chapter!
Is molecular gastronomy completely safe for your health? How would you explain this to people who don’t have background knowledge in molecular gastronomy and simply overlook it as unhealthy/unsafe?
Here I see that you confuse molecular gastronomy and molecular cooking. Please see the text about that. Science is safe for your health, because it is knowledge, not food !
About molecular cooking (not molecular gastronomy), if people fear it, it's because they don't know the definition of molecular cooking : cooking with new tools.
But now there is a new chapter in the history: note by note cooking. And them people will perhaps fear it. Please look at the text about note by note cooking, in order to see :
-why people will fear it
- why I don't care about people fearing it (they will need it!).
Are molecular gastronomy foods something that young children could consume?
“Molecular gastronomy food “ cannot exist ! Remember that molecular gastronomy is science, not food !
If you discuss molecular cooking dishes, then it depends on what it contains. Please never fall in generalities. For example, do you know that children should not eat “saucisson”, because of nitrites ?
And this is traditional food. Not molecular cooking.
By the way, why don't you ask also “are traditional food something that young children could consume?” ;-)
Can pure compounds be produced and eaten in molecular gastronomy recipes?
Again, no molecular gastronomy recipes. You probably think of note by note cooking. The book in English about this will be published in NYC in October.
What are some prime examples of molecular gastronomy recipes that utilise the changing of states of matter?
The same as for traditional food. When you make a gel, there is a transformation. When fat melts, there is a liquefaction, etc. Just look at a culinary book.
What are some examples of catalysts in molecular gastronomy? How do they work?
Again, the confusion. But if you consider molecular cooking, it is the same as for traditional cooking. But for note by note cooking, there will be possibilities of many advances in this regard.
Could endothermic and exothermic reactions be explained to young children through molecular gastronomy? What are some examples of these reactions within food?
Of course, but there, I would need more time than I have now.
Can we use molecular gastronomy to explain the different tastes of foods e.g. acids/bases? What are some foods that can be explained through their PH levels?
Yes. There are many. Please see my podcasted courses on AgroParisTech, and my various books. Sorrry, most of it is in French.
What are some very simple reactions that can be explained to high school students through food? For example reactions that a student would be able to write out the formula and identify the product and reactant.
I feel that I can explain any reaction to anybody. The question is how deep?
Is Stoichiometry important in molecular gastronomy? What are some examples of stoichiometry in molecular gastronomy?
How could the chemical calculation of concentration be taught through Molecular Gastronomy?
If you look to the “Cours en ligne” of AgroParisTech, in the part “physical chemistry for formulation” or in the FIPDes part, you will see many courses in English, at the university level. The same content could be taucht in high schools.
What are some examples of precipitation reactions within foods/molecular cuisine?
Same as before
What types of reactions are most common in molecular gastronomy? What are some examples of these?
Same as before
Are gels classified as a solid or liquid why? How would you explain this to young students?
About gels, look to my AgroParisTech course en ligne, as said above.
What are some examples where acids and bases are manipulated in molecular gastronomy?
What are some simple kitchen myths that have been proven wrong? What method was used to prove these myths as false?
Please see my article “Comparative molecular gastromy” in the Japanese Journal of Cookery science.
How does different PH levels effect food?
Same as before
Can hydrated compounds be explained through the dehydration of food?
Sorry but I don't understand the question
Can the molecular formula be determined for food? e.g. what is the molecular formula of a strawberry? How is it found?
I don't understand the question. Do you mean DSF ? If so, did you the courses about that, and the articles ?
What is chemically happening in the process of spherfication?
See articles on that.
When maltodextin is added to fat, what is chemically happening?
Everywhere on the net.
What properties of soy lectin, xanthan Gum and sodium citrate that make them emulsifiers?
Again, see my courses.
How does Agar Agar gell work/ why does it have the properties it has?
Everywhere on the net
How does sodium Alginate gell work/ why does it have the properties it has?
Everywhere on the net
What are the most interesting chemicals have you worked with/ studied through molecular gastronomy? What is it that you found interesting?
Water ! If protons are labile (as seen with NMR, it means that the “are not” in the molecule, so that the H2O molecule does not exist, as a fixed unit. This is one very interesting and simple case, let's say prototype, for many other ideas in physical chemistry.
Today, received this :
Dear Mr.This
My name is XXXX and I attend a high school named Enskilda gymnasiet in Stockholm, Sweden. I’m studying a natural science program and right now I’m doing a project regarding chemistry. I’m investigating if molecular gastronomy is going to be included in meals of a family’s’ daily life.
The past evolution of food shows that we are always trying to develop food so that it will be as easy, comfortable and quick as possible for a common family to put food on the table.
I’ve read an extremely interesting article where you participated in a Swedish magazine called ”Forskning & Framsteg”. Furthermore, I was wondering if you could take a tad of your time and help me with my project by answering a few questions.
1. 1. Do you think molecular gastronomy will be included in a future family’s everyday meals? If so, in what way?
2. 2. How do you think catering will look like in the future? What will be its contents? Is there a possibility that we might have a powder that we will mix with water, which will give us meatball dough?
3. 3. Do you think there will be some kind of replacement for todays’ protein? If so, how and what?
4. 4. Do you think the molecular gastronomy has to develop further to prepare the society in case of a cataclysm or a long term cut of electric power? If so, in what way?
5. 5. In 20 years, how would you imagine a lunch for a stressed, hard working person would look like? Is there a possibility that this person will only have to take a pill to get all the nutrition we need to survive?
Thank you in advance.
Here the answer :
Thanks for your message. Please do look at https://sites.google.com/site/travauxdehervethis/, as the English section contains a lot of questions+answers.
Specifically :
1. Do you think molecular gastronomy will be included in a future family’s everyday meals? If so, in what way?
Molecular gastronomy is science, that you confuse probably with molecular cooking. Indeed, some years ago, I would had say yes, but I am now proposing something much more important, called "note by note cooking". And yes, for sure, note by note cooking is the future of our food, for many reasons that I am explaining in a book in French (English version in October).
2. How do you think catering will look like in the future? What will be its contents? Is there a possibility that we might have a powder that we will mix with water, which will give us meatball dough?
Catering in the future ? Note by Note. By the way, the idea of pills, or powder, or capsules is a fantasm. If you calculate the needed energy for just survival, it takes more than 300 g using the most energetic compounds (which is fat) ! Except if we find a more energetic (and edible) compound...
3. Do you think there will be some kind of replacement for todays’ protein? If so, how and what?
Remember that we need nitrogen ! And that as living organisms are concerned, we have to take the biology of evolution into account.
4. 4. Do you think the molecular gastronomy has to develop further to prepare the society in case of a cataclysm or a long term cut of electric power? If so, in what way?
Molecular gastronomy has to develop in order to make new discoveries, but science has nothing to do with society issues. Only technology does. And the Note by Note project has to spread. Many questions have to be studied. Ten billions people in 2050, plus predicted crisis for water and energy!!!
5. In 20 years, how would you imagine a lunch for a stressed, hard working person would look like? Is there a possibility that this person will only have to take a pill to get all the nutrition we need to survive?
Answered above.
Happy New Year
Today, about cocktails
Quelles sont les différences entre le concept que M. Nicholas Kurti et vous-même ont initialement développé et le phénomène mondial de gastronomie moléculaire ?
Please, be careful, about 3 very different things
1. molecular gastronomy
2. molecular cooking (along with molecular cuisine), and molecular mixology
3. note by note cooking
The first one is a scientific activity, and the two others are “culinary activities” (meaning producing food and drinks).
I explain :
Molecular Gastronomy is a scientific activity, not technology, not technique.
This means that molecular gastronomy does not intend to make food and drinks, but only focuses on finding the mechanisms of phenomena which occur during cooking.
Indeed chefs don't make molecular gastronomy. This is not a question of haute cuisine or not, but a question that no chef can solve differential equations, no chef is looking for the Higgs boson... I am not saying that chefs could not be scientists, but I do say that what they do is not “quantitative science” (more or less physical chemistry). More in details, I have to insist that the “experimental method” is not enough to define quantitative sciences.
By the way, I shall now explain something for all what is coming after. Generally people don't use the word “gastronomy” right. Gastronomy means indeed “knowledege about food and drinks”. It does not mean good food, or fine cooking, or haute cuisine!
If you study the history of cooking, for example, then, you DO gastronomy (in this case, not molecular gastronomy, but rather historical gastronomy). If you study the geographic distribution of the mocecca recipes, for example, you do geographical gastronomy, etc.
And this is why chefs don't make molecular gastronomy, because, I repeat, this means physical chemistry ; not cooking !
Now “molecular cooking” : the true definition that I gave when I created it was “to cook with new tools”, such as liquid nitrogen, siphons, rotary evaporators... Molecular cooking was a way to modernize cooking.
Of course, when you have new tools, you can make new products. For example, if you have siphon, you can put in it tomato juice, vodka, lemon juice, tabasco... and pschittt... : you get a foamed bloody mary ! (try, I love this drink).
You see, molecular mixology was defined the same : make cocktails using new tools, and this is what I created at a very old session with bartenders at the Ritz, in Paris.
May I tell you that I was very happy, travelling recently to Quatar, to get “molecular drinks” there?
Now, the future : note by note cooking and mixology.
The idea is to drop fruits, vegetables, meats, fishs, eggs... and to cook with pure compounds. For example, you mix water, ethanol, citric acid, glucose, colorants, salt, sugar, some odorant compounds such as paraethylphenol... and you get a liquid with color and flavour. If you add agar agar, you make this food as a solidified, and this becomes food, no longer a drink.
This is note by note cooking, making food with pure compounds.
Of course, in the example I gave, this is very simple, too simple, because a simple gel... is a simple gel, but the idea is to make wonderful dishes this way.
By the way, I did not hear of any other possible new trend for cooking, after molecular cooking. This is the only and ultimate possibility, very exciting for many reasons. In particular, the number of new possibilities is infinite, because then you can make ANY flavour, ANY colour, ANY taste, ANY odor, ANY consistency!!!!!
Comment voyez-vous dans un futur proche et lointain l’expansion de la gastronomie moléculaire dans la mixologie moléculaire ?
Remember my definition of molecular gastrnomy and molecular mixology. There will never be any interaction of the two, because physical chemistry has nothing to do with drinks !
But if the question were : « how molecular cooking » and « molecular mixology » could interact, I answered publicly a long time ago, in particular with a cocktail that I invented, with 10 layers! I called it « welcome coffee », and it took me five minutes to invent and make. It was served during the Crillon event of which I told you, and the idea is to USE results of physical chemistry to make cocktails (not to produce such results, only to use them).
By the way, when there are new tools for cooking, they can be used also for drinks ! For example, look at the rotary evaporators : you can make wonderful odorant fractions for both food and drinks, all the same.
Pouvez-vous m’expliquer ce qu’est “Notes by Notes Cocktails”?
What is NbN cocktails ? I gave you an example before : you make a cocktail... without any vodka, orange juice, tomato juice... Only with compounds.
Quelle est la différence entre “Notes by Notes” et la “Mixologie Moléculaire“ ?
Molecular Mixology is defined as making cocktails with new tools. Note by Note mixology is to make cocktail with pure compounds.
Quelles expériences avez-vous de la gastronomie et de la culture brésilienne ? (Chefs, ingrédients, etc.)
I went to Brasil twice, and I have many friends there.
But this was not Brasilian gastronomy, as you say, but rather Brasilian Cuisine, or Brasilian mixology (see definition above).
Brasilian ingredients ? Alex Atala, at DOM, is a wonderful chef, and he made me taste wonderful brasilian products.
By the way, during my last (wonderful) dinner at DOM, he offered me to drink many fruits infusion... but at a point, there was a good Chablis wine, and I prefered it MUCH.
In my opinion, the wonderful products from Amazonie could be offered as drinks, but the drinks should be improved, in particular because ethanol is wonderful compound... and there are so many others.
Comment “Notes by Notes” peut-il aider un barman à améliorer tant la qualité que le résultat final de son travail ?
The answer is the same as for chefs : with Note by Note, you can invent an infinite number of new possibilities. And youn can fix drinks, when you want to use old products. Imagine that a cocktail is not as you would like : you could add some citric acid, for example, if you miss some acidity, or some « lemon » taste. Or tartaric acid, or citral, or glucose for the mouthfeel...
Pensez-vous que la mixologie moléculaire peut devenir le quotidien des professionels du bar ? Si oui, de quelle manière ?
Yes, molecular mixology can become the daily practice of bartenders... and it is already the case when you are not lazy, or when you are open to new flavours... but molecular mixology is already an old story. The real trend of today is note by note mixology !
La mixologie moléculaire peut-elle être considérée comme une mode plutôt que comme un nouveau concept fait pour durer, dans les bars ?
Same kind of questions. Once the new tools are in bars, we can move to new ingredients, i.e. note by note mixology.
Croyez-vous que nous sommes dans l’âge d’or de la mixologie moléculaire et que l’apogé de son concept est proche ?
I don't know... and I don't care, because I am always looking at tomorrow, and my efforts are the promotion of note by note cooking and mixology.
A quel moment vous êtes vous tourné vers la gastronomie ?
If you mean « molecular gastronomy », it was the 16th of March 1980.
Quel est/sont votre/vos meilleur(s) souvenir(s) en rapport avec un/des cocktail(s) ?
Of course, I have two great times with cocktails : the Welcome coffee of which I told you before, but also I LOVE the bloody mary made from a siphon. And also, in Montreal, the « dead leaves » cocktail served in 2009, when I was doing a press conference.
But indeed, the best cocktail that I ever had... is the one that I shall get tomorrow with very good friends.
Quelle est aujourd’hui votre boisson préférée ?
All the very good ones, shared with good friends. French wines, in particular, can be WONDERFUL. Recently, I have a 1976 Riesling from André Blanck, or a Hügel pinot gris. I also remember a Puligny Montrachet Les Pucelles 1961, which was remarkable, and so many others.
At Pierre Gagnaire's, I had an extraordinary drink that Pierre made using beer, wine, and various other drinks. This guy is a genius.
Quel est le cocktail du futur ?
Note by note, certainly Note by note
Quels conseils donneriez-vous à un Barman qui voudrait se lançer dans l’étude de la mixologie moléculaire
Easy, just work, taste, try to make us happy, forget your ego, explore the universe of tastes, odors, consistencies. Don't be close minded, but look at the world, study art. And, by the way, forget about molecular mixology; move preferably in the note by note mixology field.
Today, about meat :
Questions on the subject: Tenderized meat
How can natural meat tenderizer as juice from pineapple or papaya be used in the professional kitchen?
In some countries, it is authorized to inject proteases (bromeline from pineapple, but also papaine from papaya, or ficin from figs, etc) using syiringes. Other fruits are possible, such as black currant.
In the kitchen, this injection can be done either with one syringe, or with many for faster result.
Please tell us something about the chemical reaction when using pineapple or papaya juice to tenderize meat.
Meat is primarily made of muscular fibers surrounded by collagenic tissue, and group with collagenic tissue as well. The more collagenic tissue, the harder the meat.
Inside the muscular fibers, there are other proteins such as actins and myosins, which can make aggregates during rigor mortis, and then aggregates dissociates due to enzymes such as calpains and other.
In the juce of some fruits, there are protease enzymes, i.e. proteins which can cut other proteins, releasing amino acids or peptids. Depending on the particular enzyme, the action is different, and the dissociation site of the enzyme can change.
Can it be compared to other methods (like e.g. using lime for Ceviche)?
The action of proteases is very different from the action of acids. And I assume that the main effect of marinating is mostly to protect meat agains micro-organisms spoiling, allowing meat “rassissement” (I don't know the name in English), i.e. giving time for meat to tenderize spontaneously.
How do you avoid that the tenderized meat smells like pineapple or papaya? How do you avoid the meat adopting the taste of pineapple or papaya?
If you use the enzymes, and not the fruit juice, there is no tast of fruits ! Moreover, enzymes are catalytic molecules, which means that a tiny quantity can make a huge effect, with time.
Can natural juices like pineapple or papaya juice been replaced by similar artificial ingredients? How and by which?
Replaced ? Any protease can be used.
Which kind of meat pieces from which animals are particular suitable for being tenderized by natural juices as the mentioned?
Any collagenic tissue, being made from proteins called collagen, can be modified.
By the way, of course enzymes are useful... but don't forget low temperature cooking !
Is it possible to pimp low-grade or cheap meat by using this kind of treatment with pineapple or papaya juice? That could be very interesting for professional restaurant owner.
Yes.
Are there any other natural meat tenderizers similar to the mentioned ones? Which?
?
Do you know any professional cooks using pineapple or papaya juice to tenderize meat? Who and since when?
No, I don't have time to look for people doing things.
How should it be communicated with the guests that meat has been treated by using pineapple or papaya juice? Would they accept it?
I don't know
If professional cooks (working for average, “normal” restaurants, not for haute cuisine restaurants) are confronted by the term “molecular kitchen” lots of them just say No Way! Why shouldn’t they say so?
Generally, there is a confusion about molecular cooking. Remember that the definition is : cooking with modern tools. Perhaps some consumers want to stay in the Middle Age ? However, imagine that you whip egg whites with a whisk, and that a siphon is given to you : why refusing the siphon, if you get the same effect more easily ?
Which advantages could they take by using some molecular techniques including tenderizing meat by pineapple or papaya juice?
Do you mean : the consumers ?
Is the molecular kitchen still state of the art? Why?
Molecular kitchen ? What do you mean by that ? I know “molecular cooking”, whose definition is “cooking with modern tools”.
Or which trend displaced it?
Will molecular cooking be displaced ? Yes, I hope !!!! And I promoting now “note by note cooking” (see attached doc).
Any other thoughts concerning this subject?
About you:
Tell us something about you: What are you researching at the moment?
Now, I am working in many directions :
- preparing nutriments from any kind of plant tissues
- determining the quantity of estragole in the various components of a dish of chicken with terragon
- very important theoretical work on new kind of gels, and there bioactivity (release of odorant, taste, etc. compounds) ; this work goes along experimental work in order to test experimentally the theoretical ideas
- etc.
Any new books coming up? Any new projects (maybe even concerning Switzerland?)
New book : La cuisine note à note was published in september, but the publisher is now preparing the next manuscript, given to him some months ago. In my computer, 61 finished manuscrips, on various topics, either culinary or purely sientific.
Projects about Switzerland : I am invited to lecture in October (Sion, Valais)
How many books did you write?
Between 15 and 20, I don't remember, but giving you cv + file
Which book is your most important one?
A father should not prefer one of his children. I did my best for all my books.
Again the confusion between science and science !
If we have the possibility, shouldn't we be fair and honest ? Shouldn't we say the truth toyoung people who decide for their lives on what we tell them ?
Today, I received an email containing this :
I am a culinary student in Pittsburgh, PA USA. I stopped attending my pastry program to study science and mathematics at a 4 year institution to learn why is baking called a science.
My answer was obvious :
I don't understand what you write, when you say "I stopped attending a pastry program to study science in an institution to lear why is baking called a science".
Indeed the word "science" is ambiguous, because exact sciences are not the same as other "knowledges".
Yes, one can speak of the "science of the pastry chef", of the "science of shoe maker", but this knowledge has nothing to do with the science done by chemists, physicists and biologists, for example (including molecular gastronomy in this group... as it should not be confused with "molecular cuisine").
For "nature sciences", or "natural philosophy" as it was called, the job is to use the "scientific method" in order to discover the mechanisms of phenomena.
The scientific method ?
1. observe a phenomenon
2. make quantitative measurements of it
3. link all data in synthetic laws
4. look for mechanisms explaining such laws ; the group of found mechanisms will make a model, or a theory
5. look for consequences (predictions) of your theory
6. make an experiment in order to refute the theory, and go back to 2 and subs for ever.
You seek, making a bread or a cake has nothing to do with this !
A question from Malaysia :
Dear Hervé This,
I'm from Indonesia and I have a great interest in food science. I've just graduated from Chemistry Department this year and now I'm applying Erasmus Mundus Master Program-Fipdes (Food Innovation Product and Design). I hope I can meet you later if I'm accepted.
So, a few days ago I attended Food Seminar in my college and there's a chef as a speaker. Then, he explained a bit about Molecular Gastronomy. First, he explained that Molecular Gastronomy is very popular in Europe now and there's a few of his friends that cook with Molecular Gastronomy Technique. But, he personally don't have interest in it because the cost is very high and after all the process, the food that we eat in the end is still the same food. Or in another word, it's not worthy enough. So, what's make it different is just a new sensation when eating the food.
What I want to ask is about the Molecular Gastronomy itself. What's the main benefit that we can get from the food that's been cooked based on this knowledge? What's make it special and different? Is it only making a new sensation when eating that food?
I'm reading one of your book now (Molecular Gastronomy, Exploring The Science of Flavor). It's not finished yet. But, what I've got from this book so far is an explanation about the best way to prepare the food, or in other meaning is to make it healthier and of course more delicious.
I want to use the knowledge about Molecular Gastronomy for my future career. Because I like both chemistry and cooking. But, I want the food that I'll cook in the future, can give positive benefits for people.
Sorry if my question isn't good enough. I just want to make sure about this. Thank you so much.
Sincerely,
And here is my answer :
Many thanks for your email.
I am happy that you are interested in FIPDes, and I hope that you will be selected. Of course, we shall meet as soon as you will be here.
Concerning the seminar, it seems that there is some confusion about molecular gastronomy (science) and molecular cuisine (cooking).
Indeed, there is no "molecular gastronomy techniques", but only "molecular cuisine techniques".
And it is not true that you can do with ordinary tools all what you do with molecular cuisine techniques. For example, the various gelling agents are making very different gels. For example, rotary evaporator makes something that you cannot do in your old kitchens. For exemple, liquid nitrogen can help you to make many other things. For example, siphons can allow you to make sparkling fruits: how would you make them otherwise?
The price ? No, such techniques are not expansive.
But never try to fight people with bad faith : you loose your time.
Now you tell me about the benefit of molecular gastronomy, but do you mean really molecular gastronomy, or rather molecular cuisine ? The purpose of molecular cuisine (and it's real definition) is to propose a modernization of culinary tools. This is its goal. And, of course, when you have new tools, you can make new dishes.
But as said in the attached papers, molecular cuisine is now very old (more than 30 years)... and I am more interested in "Note by Note cuisine".
In the end, may I tell you that probably, you cannot do both chemistry and cooking ? Chemistry is a science, meaning trying to understand the mechanisms of phenomena. Cooking means art, and producing food. You will probably have to choose !
Kind regards
More questions and answers :
1) Do you think the term molecular gastronomy is confusing to people? If so, what should we use instead?
No. The term is perfectly clear if you stick to its etymology. Please see what I write in the two papers along.
As gastronomy means knowledge, molecular gastronomy is the right word for a science which considers phenomena occurring during the preparation and consumption of dishes. And moreover, it is very important, because food means really dish, and it's different from food ingredients. We do not eat food ingredients, but only dishes, and one cannot evaluate properly "food" (from the point of view of nutrition, toxicology, etc.) if one does not study "cooking".
By the way, people like Heston Blumenthal and others were completely wrong when they said that molecular gastronomy does not exist any longer. THey are confusing molecular gastronomy (science) and molecular cuisine... which still exists... because the definition of molecular cuisine is : cooking with new tools, ingredients, methods.
There is no need to change any word, as they are properly defined ! And it is certainly not a good method to call all this "modernist cuisine" or other names (is it a way of selling books ?)
2) How would you describe the interaction between science and cooking that we’re seeing today? Is it a recent phenomenon?
There is no interaction between science and cooking. Cooks are cooking, which is a technical activity, and scientists are doing science, which does not involve cooking.
More precisely, when chefs are doing molecular cuisine, they are using the results of technology, which used results of science.
And this is exactly what Nicholas Kurti and myself wanted to do !
By the way, the "goal" of molecular cuisine was to modernize the techniques in cuisine, in order to stop middle age activities and be more rational. Why do we use cars, computers, but still pans ? This was the question and this was the reason of molecular cuisine.
By the way, the new trend is now exploding, from France all around, and it's called "note by note cuisine". The manifesto was published in september, in Paris, and Columbia University Press is translating the book in English.
3) Do you think it’s important for home cooks to have a more scientific understanding of food?
Yes and no. Yes, because it is ALWAYS good to avoid ignorance. No, because the real goals of cooking are first love, then art, and finally technique. As long as you do well, you don't NEED to understand anything. But on the other hand, remember my first "yest" : shouldn't we always try to know something ? I would even say that the right way to be a good "citizen" is to know more chemistry, and more science in general. Why making revolutions for pesticides residues, when, at the same time, you eat meat full of cancerogenic benzopyrens, because cooked on a bbq ?
Knowing more chemistry is an issue for the whole society, because we cannot avoid taking decisions important for societies, and these decisions have to be funded on the right understanding of questions involving dangers and risks.
1.- What makes Hervé This get interested in gastronomy?
You remember that "gastronomy" does not mean "haute cuisine", but rather "knowledge". Indeed, I am fascinated by chemistry since I am 6 years old... and I am also cooking since that time. I always cooked extensively for friends, family... because I understand now that cooking is first love, then art and technique.
But in 1980, when cooking a cheese soufflé for friends, I realized that both passions could be mixed, and I did mix them. This led me to meet Nicholas Kurti, who was doing the same in the UK. We became very intimate friends, and we created molecular gastronomy (science), as well as molecular cuisine (this new way of cooking based on new results of science and technology).
2.- Your research work about the relation between cooking and sciences, make us rethink about a sort of new ways to get into a innovative and almost unknow World of flavors, textures and gastronomic pleasures. What do you think about the way cookers are using the term molecular gastronomy at their menus?
Chefs are not doing molecular gastronomy, but rather "molecular cuisine". The definitions are :
Molecular Gastronomy : the scientific discipline which looks for the mechanisms of phenomena occurring during culinary activities
Molecular Cuisine : cooking with new tools, ingredients, methods. By the way, one should add that, contrary to molecular gastronomy (a right term), the name "molecular cuisine" is faulty, because cuisine will never be "molecular" stricto sensu. Molecular Cuisine is an expression which I had to create because some journalists (mainly in the usa) said that chefs were doing molecular gastronomy, which is not true, as chefs are not doing science.
Of course, because people have sometimes a big ego, new names were given to molecular cuisine (technoemotional cuisine, science based cuisine, modernist cuisine...) but all this is molecular cuisine, and nothing else.
Mind that, on the other hand, the next culinary trend, that I am pushing forward those days, ie Note by Note Cuisine, has nothing to do with molecular cuisine. This is very new, and very exciting... and it deserves a new name.
3.- Your theory about use the scientific method to make a face to face to the traditional uses at the kitchen, make some cookers and professionals chefs to reunderstand the process to create dishes, and consequently we are watching a huge gastronomical revolution on our tables. You best know if it movement is just the beginning or if we are watching a mature exposure of it?
Molecular Cuisine was introduced in France in the 80's, and now supermarkets sell siphons, various gelling agents different from traditional veal feet or simply gelatine. Vacuum cooking and low temperatures are everywhere here, and even "chocolate Chantilly" is taught here in primary schools.
In some other countries, it is advanced also, but I receive today emails telling me that Molecular Cuisine is slowly beginning to develop in countries like China, Turkey, Malaisia...
Indeed, I cannot predict the future, but I am inviting all chefs to step over molecular cuisine, and move very fast to Note by Note Cuisine. Molecular Cuisine was only one step.
At the same time, molecular gastronomy is growing in universities: today, many chemistry departments of the world have a Molecular gastronomy group.
4.- Culinary constructivism seems to only responds to pleasure or gustatory effects, with out connection to our culinary roots, is it?
Yes and no. Yes, culinary constructivism aims to produce some particular sensations, sensory effects. But we are only at the beginning of this story, because we don't know much of the "laws" for making the sensory effects. Indeed traditional cooking can improve being constructivist, or molecular cuisine, or note by note cuisine. But again, we miss today the rules, the laws.... and this is why chefs on one hand and scientists of the other have to collaborate on this huge and difficult project.
5.- In your opinion: The evolve of cooking depends on….
In order to explain my answer, I have first to tell you the (true) story of when I proposed to chefs to use other gelling agents than gelatine. It was in 1984, and I went to see one of the main chefs assocation, in France. I proposed them to use not only gelatine, or calf feet, but also agar-agar, carraghenans, alginates... I was being told that I was smart and kind... but that it was probably dangerous to used these products.
Then, when the mad cow crisis struck, within two weeks only, many chefs had moved toward using such products !
I now know that it is useless to go against walls, and that facts do the important job better than me.
The facts are :
- 9 billion people to feed
- energy crisis
- water crisis
This is why I have the feeling that Note by Note Cuisine is perfectly suited for the future of cuisine. Of course the move will not be for next year... but I have time !
6.- And how it affect the traditions?
Traditions? Strange word indeed. Many of us have the feeling that tradition is something good... but one has to remember that excision of little girls, or slavery, etc. are traditional !!!!!! And they are not good!
In the culinary area, BBQ are traditional, but they make people eat loads of cancerogenic benzopyrens. Is this tradition good ?
Moreover, traditions... are very specific. In Alsace (my family district, a very small place, less than 100 x100 km), the north has different traditions from the south, and ever neighboring villages have different traditions. Then what is the value of traditions if they are personnal ? And not shared ?
Finally traditions change extensively... which means that their value can be discussed. For example, a real custard, according to the Guide Culinaire book (Gilbert, Fetu, Escoffier), should have 16 egg yolks per liter of milk. Who, today, would appreciate such heavy dish?????
7.- Now cooking schools are adding much more subject of physics and chemistry to they study plans, some people at last find the value of hart science in quotidian life, so your thesis about molecular gastronomy and culinary constructivism are also provoquing a revolution at the academic field. In your opinon what must be the focus to be successful interacting those fields art and sciences?
I am sorry, but I don't understand very well the question.
Concerning education, anyway, I must say that I am realizing today even better than education is the KEY!
And education (I mean schools, colleges, universities) should focus on CULTURE, which means sciences, technology, technique, art... Indeed these various fields are very different (for example, I made lectures to explain that arts and sciences have nothing in common), but all useful. Confucius said that man is no tool, which means that an individual is not a technician only, or an artist only, or... but the activities are different. And I love that idea that individuals could be interested to almost everything (I mean, honest activities, or rather activities that make individuals grow and develop intellectually).
8.- Since Les secrets de la casserole to the last year cours de gastronomie moléculaire ¿your aproch to the table have changed?
Extensively!!!!!! Of course, the study of culinary precisions goes on, but I worked so much that I can now understand many things that I did not. For example, about the difference between technique, technology and science. For example about art, because I made a whole book about it. For example about the practice of science (my daily life), because I am entirely focused on it. For example about public education, because I am involved with friends of the Academy of Agriculture in this field. For example about litterature, because I am working hard. For example about higher education, because I made a very important work in this direction. For example about cuisine, because I now understand that Note by Note Cuisine is not crazy, but "obvious". For example about "eating" because it's the key. For example about chemistry, because I took time to think very hard about it, when producing my book entitles "the wisdom of the chemist". For example about the scientfiic practice, for example...
9.- You demonstrate to the World that sciences can improve the culinary art, do you think art can help sciences?
Indeed science is not improving art. Science can produce new knowledge, than technology transfers to technique. Art is something different, I would say. Indeed, I am promoting the idea that cooking should be divided into two parts: craft and art. Just as painting, as music, as litterature. And I proposed to the Michelin Guide (and other guides the same) that they should not put in the same boxes craftpeople and artists.
About art toward science ? I told you above that I understand very clearly that art and science have nothing in common, but I can explain shortly. If you define human activities by a goal and a way :
- art has (more or less) the goal of emotion... and its own way
- science has the goal of looking for the mechanisms of phenonema, and the way is "the scientific method" (too long to explain, but it relies on the idea that the world is "written" in mathematical words).
You see: two different ways, going in different directions.
Of course, some artists can (and to) be "inspired" by new technical tools, ingredients, methods... but these do not come from science directly; they are transfered by technology.
And for the scientific activities, the art is no use. Scientists need art, because this means emotions, and they are humans... but art is useless for their scientific activities, except being part of culture.
Finally I am sorry to finish answering your questions with a negative answer, because I am the opposite: always trying to find the positive aspects of the world: the bottle is more half full!
What I would say is that life is beautiful, that the issue is not money, or luxury, or ... It is KNOWLEDGE ! And gourmandise is probably an important part of culture. We have to love open questions, with no answer, because they are promises of answers. And even if they never get answers, they are "backbones" that help us to stand up!
Let's move!
Usually one would ask “why did you enter the profession you are in?”, however in your case I believe a more suitable question would be: As a physical chemist why did you develop a particular interest in the field you have coined ‘molecular gastronomy’?
There are indeed many reasons together.
First I love chemistry, physics and mathematics since the age of 6 years old. Then, I am also cooking since I am a child.
However, when I was a child, I was doing chemistry and physics during a large part of my free time, visiting once a week the Palais de la Découverte (science museum in Paris), so that at 12 years old, I was even invited to lecture on liquid nitrogen.
Of course, this passion for chemistry led me to enter the best "Grande Ecole" (top university) for chemistry in France (Ecole supérieure de physique et de chimie de Paris), and I should probably be an organic chemist today, but the 16th of March 1980, because of a failed cheese soufflé, I realized that there was something interesting to do, using my personal lab at home (I have indeed a wonderful lab in my house, with UV spectrometry, microscopy, etc.), i.e. collecting and testing what I am calling today "culinary precisions". This work transformed in Molecular Gastronomy when I met Nicholas Kurti and when we both, together, realized in 1988 that a particular science was needed.
As the term ‘molecular gastronomy’ has become better known over the years do you feel that people’s understanding of what molecular gastronomy is (as a field of study and development) has improved? And do you find that it is often confused with molecular cooking?
It depends on countries and on people. Yes, there is a lot of confusion between Molecular Gastronomy, molecular cooking or cookery, and such chimeras as "culinary science" or "scientific cooking". Generally, the confusion are based on the fact that people don't know what gastronomy is, what science is, and even in scientific circles, there is a confusion between science and technology, or engineering.
But I have time in life to fight all these confusions. And anyway, molecular cooking will be soon replaced by "note by note cooking", a name for which the possibility of confusion with molecular gastronomy is reduced.
How would you define molecular gastronomy versus molecular cooking?
Very simple: just hear the words! Cooking is cooking, molecular or not. And cooking means producing food. Gastronomy is knowledge. And knowledge is not food, it's knowledege.
Now the definitions :
science: most practitioners of science would be happy to accept the idea that science is the activity of looking for the mechanisms of phenomena, or trying to picture how things work, using a particular method called the “experimental method”, or “hypothetico-deductive method”, or simply the scientific method.
This methods has the following steps : (1) observing a phenomenon ; (2) characterizing quantitatively the phenomenon (and producing a lot of data) ; (3) synthesizing the data in laws ; (4) proposing theories, i.e. lists of mechanisms explaining the laws ; (5) making predictions from theories ; (6) testing experimentally the theoretical predictions, in the hope that they will be refuted, so that the theory can be improved ; (7) and go on forever with steps (2)-(6).
It can be seen from this description that science will never be “in the kitchen”, as science produces knowledge (mechanisms of phenomena), and not dishes! Hence the question: what can science and cooking have in common?
cooking : cooking was always, is, and will remain the activity of preparing dishes ; it can be a crafty activity, or an art, but dishes will be produced for human consumption.
technique: the word comes from the Greek word techne, doing. The technical activities produce results… such as dishes.
technology: this word is (or should be) clear, as its etymology is from techne, and logos, study. Technology is the activity of improving technique, with or without the results of sciences. Here, the importance of words is again great, as it would be a mistake to write that technology is an activity that uses science (instead of “the result of sciences”). Indeed, science is a separate activity, and, coming back to the first definition, only the results of sciences can be used by technologists.
applied sciences: they are as impossible as « square circles », and I am not the first who says that applied sciences cannot exist. During all his life, the biologist Louis Pasteur, well known both for scientific advances and for applications of science, fought against this expression of “applied sciences”. The idea is mainly that if they were science, then they would not be applied, and if it is meant here the application of results of sciences (rather than science itself, as we just saw that it was impossible), then they would not be sciences any longer… but technology.
chemistry: the meaning of the word « chemistry » changed in time, as for all the previous words that we considered, but here, we probably still need to go on with changes. First, is chemistry a science or technology? Considering the history of sciences, it appears that all sciences were at various degrees linked with technology in ancient times, but that slowly the separation appeared. Hence, it would be a progress that chemistry would be considered as science only, and more precisely as the science that studies the mechanisms of atom rearrangements, in molecules or in other structures made with atoms.
gastronomy: here again, there is much confusion, as many people think that gastronomy is cooking for rich, or with costly ingredients. Indeed, the word “gastronomy” was introduced in French in 1801 by the poet Joseph Berchoux8, but it was popularized by Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, a lawyer who made a wonderful masterpiece in literature, defining « gastronomy » as the reasoned knowledge concerning all aspects of food. For example, Brillat-Savarin explained that the history of cooking, for example, is gastronomy, and more precisely gastronomic history; studying the geographic distribution of culinary skills would be gastronomy, also; and literature, economy… or science can be within the frame of gastronomy. Let us finish this short discussion by saying again that gastronomy is knowledge, and that for the sake of proper thinking, we should avoid using expressions such as “gastronomic restaurant”.
art: here again, the meaning of “art” changed extensively with time, and I am not able to summarize in a few words what needed a whole book (Cooking, a quintessential art, California University Press). However, today, art is more or less an activity of creating emotions, with relationship with “beauty”. In cooking, “beautiful” means “good to eat”… but this is really too short a description for such a complicated matter. Let us only say that the aim of art is not of looking for the mechanisms of phenomena using the scientific method. The aims of science and art are different, as well as the methods… and the productions.
molecular gastronomy: it should be said vigorously that molecular gastronomy is a scientific discipline (see “science”), and that chefs do not practice (generally) molecular gastronomy!
molecular cookery: yes, molecular cookery, also called molecular cuisine, or science-based cooking, is cooking, and not science. The “definition” would be “cooking with new tools, ingredients, methods”, but “new” should be defined as “not present in classic books such as the Guide culinaire or even in La cuisine du marché by Paul Bocuse.
Of course, also, it would be silly to consider that molecular cooking (or cookery) is a question of using molecules for cooking, as all food is made of molecules… but some journalists and chefs did not take time to consider that “molecular cooking” is a composed expression, proposed only to make the distinction with molecular gastronomy. And as molecular cooking is cooking, it means producing dishes.
What are the most common misconceptions about food preparation and cooking by chefs?
I don't know. The question is too broad.
For me as a chef, over the past few years I have seen a fast pace of technological and scientific development in many kitchens. What’s most important is the awareness by chefs towards enhancing food using these developments. What do you feel has been your most significant contribution towards the development of cooking methods used in restaurant kitchens today?
I don't care about my past contributions, and I am considering only the next ones. Note by note cooking will be soon there!
You have spent time working alongside chefs, most notably Monsieur Gagnaire, to develop the concepts you study and translate their potential application in restaurant dishes. As a physical chemist looking at a restaurant kitchen, where do you see the main developments will be in the future? For example; in the equipment used? In the way chefs work? In the recipes developed?
Note by note cooking!
And following on from the last question, what areas of the kitchen and the way they work do you think need to be developed?
Note by note cooking!
Do you believe that the discoveries made in the field of molecular gastronomy, if applied into restaurant kitchens can improve not only the food produced but also the consistency and quality of the work in the kitchen?
Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I am working so hard. I don't want money, but only the pleasure to have been able to transform the culinary practice. But it's done, indeed! Please be aware that in all French schools, children 6 years old make one cubic meter of whipped egg white from only one egg, using the educational tool that I introduced in 2002 under the name "Ateliers expérimentaux du goût" (also in Switzlerland, Finland, Denmark, Germany, UK...)
How did you first get into cooking?
I am cooking since very young… but indeed, even if I cook (quite well) every day (at home, for my family, for friends, etc.), I am not a « cook », but a chemist. And my passion is chemistry, not cooking !
What sparked your interest in molecular gastronomy and molecular cooking?
My interest in Molecular Gastronomy : this is said on the site, and also in the introduction of my book Kitchen mysteries.
I began my experiments the 16th of March 1980 because of a cheese soufflé, where the recipe was saying to add the yolks two by two. Since that time, I am collecting « culinary precisions », and testing them. Then, all the rest developped.
Molecular Cooking : I was upset that the press and the public were saying that my friends Ferran Adria or Heston Blumenthal were doing « molecular gastronomy », because it is not true. They are not scientists, and they don’t make science, but rather cooking. This is why I introduced the expression « molecular cooking », for telling this form of cooking based on modern scientific results, and in particular from results of Molecualr Gastronomy
Where did you begin your studies within food science?
See above
Were there any major obsticals you had to overcome in order to continue research and exploration within molecular gastronomy/ cooking?
None ; only I am missing seconds and smartness
What do you enjoy most about your carreer choice?
Science !
How do you think molecular cooking and gastronomy has changed since you first starting practicing in this field?
Just look around you, and compare with books by Escoffier, or even Bocuse
What are your goals for the future?
Produce good science !
What advice would you give a young cook hoping to explore the science of food, and molecular cooking?
Don’t spend your time studying science : art is much more important. And love !
When was your first contact with Molecular Gastronomy? It was called Molecular Gastronomy already? What is the history of Molecular Gastronomy, how it's starts?
My first contact with MG is... when I created it with Nicholas Kurti.
Indeed, since the 23rd of March, I was investigating culinary old wives tales in my own lab at home (I have it since the age 6 yrs old; it was increased regularly, and this lab was the one used even for my PhD). Then, in 1986, I met Nicholas, and we began working together, reproducing one another experiments, between Oxford and Paris. Then, in March 1988, we decided that we had to create a specific activity, and make an international workshop around it. I proposed to name the scientific discipline "Molecular Gastronomy" (reasons given in the attached paper), and Nicholas insisted that it was rather Molecular and Physical Gastronomy. Then, we organized the first International Workshop on this topic in 1992, inviting Harold McGee as a guest director for the first meeting, and then, regularly, Nic and I directed others workshops, still working at our labs together until Nic died in 1998, a time when I dropped the "and Physical", giving Nic's name to the workshop.
Molecular Gastronomy it's a challenge field, isn't: the objectivity of science versus the historical view of an artistic and subjective knowledge of gastronomy? Or this dicotomy it's just a false idea? Art and science/technology are distinct poles?
A challenge field? I don't understand what it means. Molecular Gastronomy is a scientific activity. But I don't understand "knowledge of gastronomy", as gastronomy is defined as a knowledge!
Anyway, yes, science, technology, art are three different field, with different objectives and different method. This is clear for art and science (and recently I was doing lectures showing how art and science have nothing in common, except perhaps that they are both part of culture), but it is also very important to recognize that science and technology are completely different fields. Engineers are not scientists, and when innovation is discussed, this is no longer science, but technology. Indeed, this was well said again and again by Louis Pasteur (who did a lot in both field), and I am fighting to push forward this idea in many technology centers of the world, but also in scientific circles. "Applied Science" is an oxymoron!!!!!
How is, for a scientist, look at all the chemical processes happening in a kitchen?
Again, I am not sure to understand the question. If you ask how a scientist can consider molecular transformations occuring during cooking, this is very simple. Science is the activity that looks for the mechanisms of phenomena, and cooking is full of phenomena, from the steak turning brown to the soufflé swelling. Then we have to understand chemically and physically all these phenomena, ie looking for the mechanisms. But I am sure that this is not the answer that you needed. Please explain.
It's necessary have to know much about the processes for venturing into the "molecular gastronomy"?
Yes, it's very important to know how to cook in order to analyse correctly the phenomena. This is why, in my idea, the collaboration with chefs is so important : frequently, in my seminars, we avoid analyzing unimportant effects because we can discuss with chefs. But it is true also that the analytical work is done back in the lab, and chefs cannot participate, because scientific activity means using specific tools, methods, that chefs don't practice and don't know. Anyway, knowing a lot of cooking is not necessary: generally, the analysis of one particular phenomenon needs a lot of lab's work. For example, consider onions turning browner when some salt is added during cooking. For this very simple effects, you need years of scientific work!
It's possible to say that the "Molecular Gastronomy" is a kind of laboratory for innovation in gastronomy? (Like "Formula 1" is for automobiles, for example).
No.
Indeed, Molecular Gastronomy is not technology, but science. Then, of course, some technologists (say engineers if you want) can use the new knowledge produced by MG in order to introduce innovation in the kitchen, but the MG activity itself has nothing to do with innovation.
Even if myself, I am proposing one innovation per month for now ten years, to Pierre Gagnaire, I have to say that it takes me some minutes to find these applications of MG. On the other hand, the MG activity is very hard, very long, because it has to be very careful. Attached is a paper on the color of green beans, you'll see how careful we have to be... in order to understand mechanisms. No innovation involved... but a lot of innovation can be made later by "culinary technologists", or "culinary engineers".
Sometimes there is this confusion between the Molecular Gastronomy and "contemporary kitchen" (like Ferran Adria does, for example). But there are diferences, aren't? And at same time there is some shared ideas, I think. That's correct?
Indeed, the confusion is often between Molecular Gastronomy and what I called "Molecular Cooking" (or molecular cuisinie, or molecular cookery, I am not speaking English well enough to decide; I leave that to my friends for who English is the mother's tongue).
Molecular Cooking was defined as : cooking with "new" tools, ingredients, methods. And "new" is defined as "what you cannot find in Bocuse 1976 book "La cuisine du marché".
The means siphons, alginate, rotary evaporator, ultrasonic bath, fritted glass funnel, etc.
Of course, contemporary cuisine frequently use such tools, methods, ingredients. Ferran is one of them, just like Heston Blumenthal, René Redzepi, Alex Attala, Denis Martin.
Surprisingly, Pierre Gagnaire is not so inclined in this direction, and if you go and see his site, with our "Art and Science" entreprise, you will see that we are going much further than Molecular COoking (sorry, the site is in French.... but we did it on purpose).
You published several books on food, systematizing and classifying the French kitchen. How was it? And what are your plans for the coming years in this area?
No, I did not publish book on food, but rather on cooking! I am less interested in French cuisine than in cuisine as a whole.
By the way, I don't understand your "how was it". What is indeed the question?
My plans form the coming years in which area exactly?
Indeed my plans are :
- to make a lot of scientific work at the lab, with students and colleagues
- to get new ideas of concepts
- to publish a huge treaty on physical chemistry based on culinary phenomena (almost finished)
- there are many other books in preparation (61 finished manuscripts, 10 non finished) but it's too early to tell about them
- to go on creating Molecular Gastronomy groups in various countries of the world
- to introduce Molecular Gastronomy is scientific curricula of the various countries, at all level between elementary schools and universities
- to develop my activity and knowledge in natural products and toxicities
- to develop the next culinary trends, ie Note by Note cooking, and later culinary constructivism...
- etc.
How long it takes to work up a new technique to be used in molecular cuisine? And how you find new methods/tools to be incorporated into the molecular gastronomy art?
What do you mean by "to work up"? If you mean, how long it takes me to get an idea that I can propose to Pierre Gagnaire, so that there is an innovation, the answer is complicated. Indeed it takes me some seconds to get the idea, but in reality, I am thinking of food all day long, for decades!
How do I find innovation? There are many ways, but one is to use systematically the new knowledge produced by science, as I explain in the document attached, whics is part a the new book that I am publishing today (in French) under the title "Culinary... Science, technology, technique : which relationship?"
What dish from your portfolio You are most proud of? Could You tell something more about this particular composition?
Indeed I am not proud of anything, because I find it too easy. Even in science, I am not proud of what I am doing... but in both areas, I am happy of "what next".
I am not saying that I did not do well in some occasions, but really the applications are easy.
In the scientific part, my introduction of the CDS/NPOS formalism for the description of colloidal matter was quite fine. It was applied to classical sauces, and showed that there are 23 physical categories, which led to the idea that we can make easily new categories. This was the basis for the sauce called Gay-Lussac. It was also the basis of the invention of the machine called a Pianocktail, that can today make automatically more than 500 billions differents sauces.
Do You think that molecular cuisine is the "cuisine of the future" - that one day we will eat solely foams, coulets and spheres?
No, molecular cuisine is not the cuisine of the future, and I published some years ago an interview where I explained why I want it to die soon : as molecular cuisine means "new tools, new ingredients and new technique", it will be old when everybody uses new ingredients, tools and techniques... and we can move to something new.
This is why I proposed for 1994 a concept called "note by note cooking" (explained in French in my book "Construisons un repas", and in English in "The science of the oven", just published at Columbia University Press.
Who should be involved with it?
Who should be involved with Molecular Gastronomy ? Scientists.
How should/can chefs apply it every day in their kitchens?
One cannot apply Molecular Gastronomy in the kitchen, because strictly speaking you cannot apply science. But you can use the results of science, and of Molecular Gastronomy in particular.
Let’s consider one example. A Molecular Gastronomy project on « carrot stocks » (aqueous solutions obtained by thermal processing of carrot (Daucus carota L.) roots in water) showed that the color of stocks is brown when the stock receives light, and orange when processed in the dark. As chefs are frequently using grilled onion to give a brown colour to stocks, an application of the result is to avoid the onion, and used light only (a lid or not).
More generally, I am explaning one innovation per month on the internet site by Pierre Gagnaire, and with Pierre, we work to give also recipes using the innovation by me.
How much science does the average chef/souschef/cook need to know?
Nothing in particular. I am fighting the idea that one has to understand to make « molecular cooking » (mind that I did not write molecular gastronomy). Molecular cooking was defined years ago as « using new tools, ingredients, methods ».
Of course, I would love that chefs understand what they do, but they don’t « need » to know. It’s only probably better.
What is the ultimate effect on/benefit to the customer?
Thanks for the question because you give me the possibility to say that I am not very interested in 3 stars restaurant. I work for the public. And this is why I am very interested by applications such as the Chocolate Chantilly, a chocolate mousse with no eggs that I invented in 1995 : the cost of this is less than the cost of a traditional mousse with egs… because you don’t use the eggs. This is called « home economics ».
More generally, it’s a pity that we cook as we do, i.e. more or less as in the Middle Age, with pans, sieves, etc.
We have to rationalize. For exemple, it’s awful that we spoil up to 80% of the energy we use for cooking ! Whisks are not appropriate for what we do with them. If we want to foam, there are much more efficient tools (siphons, or many other) ; if we want to emulsify, an ultrasonic probe is much more efficient (and fast !) ; if we want to…
Let’s cook more rationnally… if we have enough knowleldge to design changes. This is a long term idea of Molecular Gastronomy : producing the knowledge that will be the basis on deciding for changes.
May I tell you that, in this regard, we shall show in Hong Kong, the 21rst of April 2009, the first fully synthetic dish of the history of cooking ?
What was your job title at Inra when you started and what is it now?
When I cam to INRA in 2000, there was a long discussion about my title and it was chosen that I was writing on my cards and emails, and also letters : “Physico-chimiste INRA (Attaché à la Direction scientifique Nutrition Humaine et Sécurité des Aliments), Laboratoire de chimie des interactions moléculaires (Professeur Jean-Marie Lehn), Collège de France.
What’s the name of the boss who told you that science had to be “good science”?
A wonderful guy, called Gérard Pascal (please, do not write that he did not answer me about the question.
Did you join Inra in 2000 and are you 52?
Yes for the first, and I am born in 1955.
How big is your team at Inra? Is your department called the “molecular gastronomy” department? Do you have students or, as I have written, do people just come by to work on their theses?
My team is changing always. Right now, we are 14. This is the “INRA MG Team”, within the Chemistry Dpt of AgroParisTech. This dpt is a common INRA and AgroParisTech Research Unit. This INRA Unit belongs to the AlimH dpt of INRA, within the Food Direction of INRA
What’s your mother’s name?
My father is called Bernard This, and my mother is Claude This, born Jacquemin
Do you have brothers and sisters?
One brother elder, Laurent, died very young, one brother is Bruno, younger, and one sister Isabelle, much younger.
Am I right to assume that you studied FRENCH literature and where?
Yes, but more precisely : “Lettres modernes”, at Censier (Paris IV university).
Did you start working as the editor of Pour la Science straight after your studies? If not, what did you do in between?
Yes, immediately after finishing the scientific curriculum at ESPCI, I was hired by Belin publishing company (a joint venture with Scientific American), and I collaborated to Pour la Science. Six months later, I moved from Belin to Pour la Science.
When did you start collecting cookery sayings?
23 March 1980
When you said it was prestigious to write for Science magazine, you didn’t mean Pour la Science?
I don’t remember this part. Tell me more.
What year did you test the Elle soufflé recipe with eggs?
1980
When was your chocolate chantilly recipe published in Elle?
Don’t remember. It was for Xmas, probably 1999?
When you tested the suckling pigs recipe, did you cook TWO pigs?
No : four. Two had the head cut immediately, and two had not.
What is the name of your wife, and am I right to think she is a cancer specialist?
Pascale is an extraordinary physician with 3 specialties : endocrinology, gynaecology, and breast cancer. The created a “women center” in the Versailles Hospital (she still coordinates it), and she is at the root of a special “women with high risk of breast cancer” at the Curie Institute)
Est ce que La Table d’Anvers est un resto connu, étoilé? When did they try out your new molecular techniques?
Now, the restaurant is nothing, but it was a very famous restaurant. I would say that they begin doing funny things in 1992 (remember that it was the year of the first International Workshop on Molecular Gastronomy, in Erice, Sicily, that we organized with Nicholas Kurti.
Is the name spelt Wöhler, ie sauces?
Don’t understand the question : if you want to know the name of the Wöhler sauce, yes, the spelling is ok.
And could you write the ingredients of a note-by-note sauce, ie
Salt, glucose, water, etc.
Water, ethanol, sodium chloride, glucose, tartaric acid, total Syrah phenolics, butter.
AND CAN I HAVE SOME MORE SAYINGS???? FOUR OR FIVE??? Envoyez moi sur un site web, si ca vous embete.
Did you try : http://www.inra.fr/la_science_et_vous/apprendre_experimenter/gastronomie_moleculaire/une_banque_de_precisions_culinaires/precisions_relatives_aux_viandes/battre_la_viande
But also :
1742 : Marin, Les dons de Comus, 2001 (fac similé de l’édition de 1742), Manucius, Pau, Tome 3, p. 154 : « Faites suer le tout sur des cendres chaudes pendant deux heures pour faire sortir le jus, surtout que la marmite soit bien bouchée pour que le parfum de la sauce ne s’évapore pas ».
1789 : Menon ?, La science du maître d’hôtel cuisinier, 1789, nouvelle édition, Libraires associés, Paris, p. 124 : il met une garniture dans l’eau et « faites infuser sans bouillir sur de la cendre chaude ».
1838 : B. Albert, Le cuisinier parisien, p. 2 : « Au lieu de les faire trop réduire [les fonds de cuisson], ce qui leur donne souvent de l’âcreté, liez-les avec du beurre manié de farine ».
1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p. 103 : pour préparer un fond de viande, qu’il nomme jus, il écrit « Je recommande expressément de laisser mijoter seulement ; c’est le point essentiel, si l’on veut que le jus soit clair ; vous l’obtiendriez trouble infailliblement si vous faisiez cuire à trop gros bouillons ».
1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p.28: « quand il s’agit de réduire, vous devez au contraire employer un feu très ardent, pour faire évaporer le plus vite possible. Une glace ou une sauce qui réduisent trop lentement perdent à la fois comme coup d’oeil et comme goût ».
1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, 1867 (1ère ed) (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p.356 : « Je rappellerai que l’emploi que l’on fait du blond de veau comme élément particulièrement colorant et nutritif tient au principe gélatineux qu’il contient, ce qui permet de le faire tomber facilement à glace et d’en obtenir, pour les sauces et consommés, une belle couleur dans la nuance voulue ».
1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, 1867 (1ère ed) (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p. 27 : « Les cuissons s’obtiennent par le feu lent et continu. Les réductions s’obtiennent, au contraire, par un feu très vif et un évaporation très prompte ».
1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, 1867 (1ère ed) (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p. 28 : « Une glace ou une sauce qui réduit trop lentement perd à la fois comme coup d’œil et comme goût ».
1875 Environ: Baron Brisse, Ildefonse, La cuisine à l’usage des ménages bourgeois et des petits ménages, Environ 1875, C. Marpon et E. Flammarion, Paris, p. 36 : pour un jus, il fait rissoler, puis déglace au bouillon, puis « laisser mijoter le jus au moins pendant trois heures ».
1925 : A la Vichy. St Ange p. 756 : "Le sel de Vichy, ou bicarbonate de soude, ajouté aux éléments de la cuisson, remplace ici l'eau naturelle de la région de Vichy, laquelle eau n'étant point calcaire procure une cuisson parfaite. »
1976 : Paul Bocuse, La cuisine du marché, p. 72, recommande de n’utiliser que la partie rouge des carottes, dans une soupe fermière.
1981 : André Daguin, Le nouveau cuisinier gascon, Éditions Stock, Paris, 1981, p.42 : il cuit des carottes dans de l’eau avec du beurre et du sucre « jusqu’à l’évaporation ». Qu’est alors devenu le beurre?
1996 : Laura Fonty, 1000 trucs de grand-mère, Marabout, Paris, 1996, p. 9 : « Les carottes râpées noircissent très vite au contact de l’air. Pensez à leur ajouter un jus de citron »
1996 : Laura Fonty, 1000 trucs de grand-mère, Marabout, Paris, 1996, p. 9 : «Quand on épluche des carottes, on se retrouve parfois avec les doigts tout orangés. Frottez-les avec du jus de citron ou avec de l’eau oxygénée à 10 volumes ». (Si ça jaunit, c’est que les caroténoïdes sont solubles dans les graisses, donc dans la chair ; pourquoi n’a-t-on pas le même effet avec la peau des tomates?).
Auguste Colombié, Traité pratique de cuisine bourgeoise, p. 19 : « Ratissons ou enlevons le plus fin possible la peau de la carotte, car le sucre est dans la chair rouge »
A propos de carottes, Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p. 74 : « Faites cuire à grand feu pendant 20 minutes, en couvrant bien, la casserole. Ce temps doit suffire pour la cuisson du légume et pour la réduction du bouillon. » C’est étrange qu’on couvre pour réduire!
A la Vichy. St Ange p. 756 : "Le sel de Vichy, ou bicarbonate de soude, ajouté aux éléments de la cuisson, remplace ici l'eau naturelle de la région de Vichy, laquelle eau n'étant point calcaire procure une cuisson parfaite. "
Carême, art de la cuisine française p. 176 explique que les carottes sont glacées quand on ajoute au consommé du petit pain de beurre frais et des morceaux de sucre.
Auguste Colombié, Traité pratique de cuisine bourgeoise, p. 19 : « Ratissons ou enlevons le plus fin possible la peau de la carotte, car le sucre est dans la chair rouge »
A propos de carottes, Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p. 74 : « Faites cuire à grand feu pendant 20 minutes, en couvrant bien, la casseroles. Ce temps doit suffire pour la cuisson du légume et pour la réduction du bouillon. » C’est étrange qu’on couvre pour réduire!
Paul Bocuse, La cuisine du marché, p. 72, recommande de n’utiliser que la partie rouge des carottes, dans une soupe fermière.
Laura Fonty, 1000 trucs de grand-mère, Marabout, Paris, 1996, p. 9 : «Quand on épluche des carottes, on se retrouve parfois avec les doigts tout orangés. Frottez-les avec du jus de citron ou avec de l’eau oxygénée à 10 volumes ». (Si ça jaunit, c’est que les caroténoïdes sont solubles dans les graisses, donc dans la chair ; pourquoi n’a-t-on pas le même effet avec la peau des tomates?).
André Daguin, Le nouveau cuisinier gascon, Éditions Stock, Paris, 1981, p.42 : il cuit des carottes dans de l’eau avec du beurre et du sucre « jusqu’à l’évaporation ». Qu’est alors devenu le beurre?
1860 : Jules Breteuil, Le cuisinier européen, Paris, Garnier frères, p. 23 : « Quelques ménagères demeurent encore convaincues que c’est seulement dans un pot-au-feu de terre qu’on peut faire une bonne soupe grasse ; c’est une erreur. Le pot-au-feu se fait tout aussi bien dans un pot de fonte de fer émaillée à l’intérieur ».
1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, 1867 (1ère ed) (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p. 44 : « Il faut avoir soin, en plaçant le couvercle de la marmite, de laisser une ouverture de deux travers de doigt : le bouillon se troublerait dans une marmite hermétiquement fermée. »
1875 : Ildefonse Brisse, La cuisine l’usage des ménages bourgeois et des petits ménages, environ 1875, C. Marpon et E. Flammarion, Paris, p. 2 : « N’en déplaise à d’aucuns, c’est dans un pot de terre ayant servi plusieurs fois que s’obtient le meilleur bouillon ».
1890 : C. Durandeau, Guide de la bonne cuisinière, p. 21 : « On mettra la viande après l’avoir dressée, attachée et battue si l’on craint qu’elle soit dure, dans un pot de terre ou de fer».
1892 : Lucien Tendret, La table au pays de Brillat-Savarin, Lyon, 1986, Éditions Horwarth, p.26 : « Le choix du vase pour le cuir n’est point indifférent ; ceux de terre, après peu de temps, communiquent au bouillon un goût de graisse rance ; ceux de cuivre n’ont point cet inconvénient ».
1893 : Madame Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, p.350 : « Après avoir battu, dressé et attaché la viande, on la place dans un pot de terre ou de fer qu’on remplit d’eau froide ;
1893 : Madame Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, Paris, page 351 : « Après avoir battu, dressé et attaché la viande, on la place dans un pot de terre ou de fer qu’on remplit d’eau froide ; l’eau de fontaine ou celle de rivière sont préférables à l‘eau de puits. »
1893 : Madame Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, Paris, page 351 : « On sale immédiatement, »
1893 : Madame Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, p.350 : « l’eau de fontaine et celle de rivière sont préférables à l’eau de puits.
1896 : Lucien Tendret, La table au pays de Brillat-Savarin, Lyon, 1986, Éditions Horwarth, p.26 : « Mettez quatre livres de viande et cinq litres d’eau dans la marmite de cuivre. »
1899 : Jean de Gouy, La cuisine et la pâtisserie bourgeoises, 1899, réed 1903, J. Lebegue, Bruxelles et Paris, p. 73 : « Le même inconvénient se produit si on fait le bouillon dans un récipient qui n’est pas rempli d’eau aux trois quarts au moins. C’est la raison pur laquelle il est préférable de faire le pot-au-feu dans une casserole plutôt que dans une marmite large et basse.
1899 : Jean de Gouy, La cuisine et la pâtisserie bourgeoises, 1899, réed 1903, J. Lebegue, Bruxelles et Paris, p. 73 : « On met le bouilli dans une marmite profonde ».
Sd : Par les Dames Patronnesses de l’Oeuvre du Vêtement de Grammont, 760 recettes de cuisine pratique, Grammont, p. 5 : « Pour avoir un excellent bouillon, il faut employer de préférence un pot plus haut que large ».
1867 : Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, p. 43 : « Il faut avoir soin, en plaçant le couvercle de la marmite, de laisser une ouverture de deux travers de doigt : le bouillon se troublerait dans une marmite hermétiquement fermée ».
1893 : Traité pratique de cuisine bourgeoise, par Auguste Colombié, p. 19 : « C’est maintenant que l’on peut l’abandonner à lui-même après avoir réglé le gaz de façon à ce que le bouillon fasse moins que sourire, la température de 100°C le cuit et ne le réduit pas. Pour cela, il ne faut pas le laisser découvert ni même fermé hermétiquement mais presque ».
Was Harold McGee also involved in first 1992 workshop molecular gastronnomy in erice?
Yes, Nicholas and I (the director) invited him to be a one shot director for this particular workshop.
If you ask me the question, it is usually because the English speaking people have the tendency to make him the founder of Molecular gastronomy, which is not true. The “name” was coined by Nicholas and me in 1988 : I proposed “molecular gastronomy”, and Nicholas proposed to add “and physical”.
Indeed, in the 1950’s, in France, Edouard de Pomiane was very famous for his “gastrotechnie”, with radio shows and best sellers. Harold and others, such as ourselves, were not the first to investigate cooking, and Harold’s book were certainly not the first on the subject.
More generally, I am making a clear point in distinguishing the “prehistory of MG”, with Pomiane, Nicholas (well before Harold), Harold and myself, others, and the beginning of MG with Nicholas and I.
Remember also that well before Pomiane, there was Liebig, and before Liebig, there was Lavoisier!
After 20 years of molecular gastronomy, how do you see it’s development: has it surpassed your initial expectations?
I generally don’t look to the past but to the future. The result is probably : first, a lot of groups developped in all the major countries of the world, with more educational results than scientific works. Indeed our lab remains the main one for producing scientific results, and I shall have to push in this direction more than I did.
The influence on chefs was perhaps more than I could have expected... because it worked, and, indeed, I am not generally considering the summit of the mountain; I am only working, as cleverly as possible. My focus is on work, not on results... but of course the results can be appreciated.
What do you think have been the main contributions of molecular gastronomy to cooking?
Molecular Cooking, the trend that is born from the application of Molecular Gastronomy, is defined as the introduction into kitchen of new ingredients, tools or methods. This worked well. Even liquid nitrogen is used now. But it is probably more important to consider that “cooking by expansion” and “cooking by concentration” ideas were discarded. In many countries, the culinary curriculum was changed, because of Molecular Gastronomy.
Mind the fact that I am not so interested in the contributions of Molecular gastronomy. For a scientist, only contributions to science are important!
Why is it important to analyse and correct culinary traditions? This scientific approach may be seen as an attack to tradition, so how can you explain the benefits of this work?
Why it is important to analyse culinary traditions? Traditions are information. If you use right information, it’s fine, it helps you. But if you use wrong information, you will be delayed, annoyed. We have to rationalise, so that we can cook more easily, and teach better.
Moreover, I remember very well that when we began our work, many “secrets” were kept. With science, there are no secrets any longer, and anybody who wants to work and study can get the information. This is sharing a culture.
Why do you think there is still so much resistance and suspicion about molecular gastronomy?
There is some resistance and some fears of course, because the world is made of two kinds of people : conservative and innovative. It’s useless to fight the wrong ideas of the conservative, so that I don’t care about them, and I work.
Moreover, there are some (awful) people that use the fear of others to promote themselves. We should fight this kind of behavior.
But how can you fear molecular gastronomy? It’s as if you feared astronomy, physics, history, geography... knowledge!
Is there a good and bad way of how chefs should use the findings of molecular gastronomy?
Yes, there is a bad way : to make dishes that are not well done. Recently, in a famous place of the world (I shall not tell you were) the chefs had to do a “molecular cooking” menu... and the seasoning was poor. This is bad way of using molecular astronomy. Some food critics published the (wrong) idea that molecular cooking was too soft, too tender... They are wrong, because it’s a generality, but if a chef is doing well with applications of molecular gastronomy, it’s fine ; if he is doing wrong, it’s bad.
Some chefs see molecular gastronomy as a fast way of becoming famous. What dangers (if any) this represents for cooks, restaurants and science himself?
You probably wanted to say “molecular cooking” rather than “ molecular gastronomy”? But yes, it’s true that any trend is a way of being famous and having customers. If you show new things, the media go there, because they have to publish new information. And this makes some advertising to the chefs.
Dangers ? there are dangers if you poison your customers (I prefer the word “guest”). But you can poison people as well with traditional food and with molecular cooking. It’s funny, anyway, that some people criticizing molecular cooking for “chemicals” are indeed roasting, and they ignore that can be very dangerous, because of benzopyrenes, in particular. Many plants, also, are toxic!
It seems emotion and passion is a big part of the way you approach your work. How do you see the application by chefs of the findings of molecular gastronomy without a similar emotion? Will it have the same “scientific” results?
Again, we should not confuse science and cooking! Emotion and passion are part of myself... for science. And one has to consider that chefs are of two kinds : craftpeople and artists. An artist without emotion? This is no artist indeed. A craftman or craftwoman without emotion? First does it exist (after all we are all human beings, ie moved by emotion). Anyway, no chef will have scientific results, because no chef is a scientist. This is a completely other job.
More than that, we should never say that people with a scientific training and working with chefs are scientists. They are not, because they are not producing knowledge, but rather apply the results of science. They are technologists.
You say that molecular gastronomy still has a lot to explore. What paths do you think it will it take and what impact could it have in restaurants?
The paths that we have to use? As any recipe is made of a “definition” and of precisions (old wive tales, etc.), we have to develop both aspects.
What impact on restaurants? Really, I don’t know... but why not the development of the “note by note cooking” trend, with the use of pure chemicals in dishes?
Maybe one of the most controversial aspects of molecular gastronomy is the creation of artificial products. Why is it important to explore this area?
No, the creation of “artificial products” are not results of molecular gastronomy, but they are the result of applications of molecular gastronomy.
Anyway, if you have an orange (or carrot, beef, any product), you are oblige to have its flavour. Now if you make an artificial orange, you can decide for the flavour you want to give. Chefs are no grocers, but cooks!
How can you justify the utilization by a chef of an artificial product (for ex: artificial meat) instead of a “natural” product? What does it bring to the cook and the client?
Same question.
The Michelin Guide is seen by many as “classic” but, as you mentioned once, in fact it recognizes creation and artistry. What’s the role of this and others guides or awards (like the list of 50 Best Restaurants) in the evolution of molecular gastronomy?
The Michelin Guide being classic? Remember that it was one of the first to applaud to Ferran Adria, as soon as in the beginning of the 90’s.
By the way, these guides have influence on chefs, not on science. Be sure that I don’t pay any attention to the world of cooking for science!
Is it possible to speculate how will it be a top restaurant that uses the findings of science in, let’s say, 20 years from now? How would it be your dreamed restaurant? What is your goal?
A restaurant of my dreams ? A different one everyday. As for music : today, we are more happy than before because we can choose between Bach, Mozart, Bethoven, Debussy, Chopin, modern music... It would be awful if we had only Molecular Cooking because it would be a loss of culture. We have to enlarge the choice.
Tomorrow, I would be glad to have more “culinary constructivism” and “note by note” cooking restaurants, but also places with more innovation in the way we eat, we sit, we use tools (forks, knives, sticks, fingers), the way we see food, etc.
Does Hervé This loves cooking as much as science?
No, I prefer science! And this is why I am a scientist, and not a cook (I cook everyday for my family, and be sure that with a teacher such as Pierre Gagnaire and others, I am not so bad). But science! Chemistry! Physics! Physical chemistry!
When talking about this project, you mentioned both your interest in archiving old documents about cooking and the phrase Agir ceder resister--the art of giving in (to the public, in this case) so that then you can resist (the public and change its desire). How does the archiving project constitute Ceding/yielding, and what is the ultimate desire you wish to generate among the public here? What is the resisting?
OR--what are the more subversive reasons behind your encouraging the study and archiving of cooking's past?
Woww, a difficult question.
First of all, my interest in « culinary precisions » is based on the idea that a lot of science can be discovered through them.
Its only a secondary property that they can be used for changing the way people behave.
In the agir/ceder/resister strategy, the precisions are obviously part of « céder », and the audience has the feeling that coming back to good old cooking is at the core of the project.
Resisting ? In reality, I still have the desire to change the way people cook and I shall never give up the idea !
Can you talk about the idea of a museum of food? What would your ideal version of this concept look like?
A museum of « culinary precisions » ? I began here :
http://www.inra.fr/la_science_et_vous/apprendre_experimenter/gastronomie_moleculaire/une_banque_de_precisions_culinaires
In what ways do you think Les Alchimistes may help the general public (non-scientists, non-chefs) become more open to and understanding of the role science has played in our understanding of food?
In this very interesting text by Bonnefons, you first discover that old things can be very modern. Then it’ s a way to tell people that « someone that knows only its generation is a child », we need to know some history, we have to look to the past when we prepare the future, in particular. And there are many interesting ideas in it, but also many mistakes. We have the duty to WORK and make a filter for the next generations.
After 20 years of molecular gastronomy, how do you see it’s development: has it surpassed your initial expectations?
I generally don’t look to the past but to the future. The result is probably : first, a lot of groups developped in all the major countries of the world, with more educational results than scientific works. Indeed our lab remains the main one for producing scientific results, and I shall have to push in this direction more than I did.
The influence on chefs was perhaps more than I could have expected... because it worked, and, indeed, I am not generally considering the summit of the mountain; I am only working, as cleverly as possible. My focus is on work, not on results... but of course the results can be appreciated.
What do you think have been the main contributions of molecular gastronomy to cooking?
Molecular Cooking, the trend that is born from the application of Molecular Gastronomy, is defined as the introduction into kitchen of new ingredients, tools or methods. This worked well. Even liquid nitrogen is used now. But it is probably more important to consider that “cooking by expansion” and “cooking by concentration” ideas were discarded. In many countries, the culinary curriculum was changed, because of Molecular Gastronomy.
Mind the fact that I am not so interested in the contributions of Molecular gastronomy. For a scientist, only contributions to science are important!
Why is it important to analyse and correct culinary traditions? This scientific approach may be seen as an attack to tradition, so how can you explain the benefits of this work?
Why it is important to analyse culinary traditions? Traditions are information. If you use right information, it’s fine, it helps you. But if you use wrong information, you will be delayed, annoyed. We have to rationalise, so that we can cook more easily, and teach better.
Moreover, I remember very well that when we began our work, many “secrets” were kept. With science, there are no secrets any longer, and anybody who wants to work and study can get the information. This is sharing a culture.
Why do you think there is still so much resistance and suspicion about molecular gastronomy?
There is some resistance and some fears of course, because the world is made of two kinds of people : conservative and innovative. It’s useless to fight the wrong ideas of the conservative, so that I don’t care about them, and I work.
Moreover, there are some (awful) people that use the fear of others to promote themselves. We should fight this kind of behavior.
But how can you fear molecular gastronomy? It’s as if you feared astronomy, physics, history, geography... knowledge!
Is there a good and bad way of how chefs should use the findings of molecular gastronomy?
Yes, there is a bad way : to make dishes that are not well done. Recently, in a famous place of the world (I shall not tell you were) the chefs had to do a “molecular cooking” menu... and the seasoning was poor. This is bad way of using molecular astronomy. Some food critics published the (wrong) idea that molecular cooking was too soft, too tender... They are wrong, because it’s a generality, but if a chef is doing well with applications of molecular gastronomy, it’s fine ; if he is doing wrong, it’s bad.
Some chefs see molecular gastronomy as a fast way of becoming famous. What dangers (if any) this represents for cooks, restaurants and science himself?
You probably wanted to say “molecular cooking” rather than “ molecular gastronomy”? But yes, it’s true that any trend is a way of being famous and having customers. If you show new things, the media go there, because they have to publish new information. And this makes some advertising to the chefs.
Dangers ? there are dangers if you poison your customers (I prefer the word “guest”). But you can poison people as well with traditional food and with molecular cooking. It’s funny, anyway, that some people criticizing molecular cooking for “chemicals” are indeed roasting, and they ignore that can be very dangerous, because of benzopyrenes, in particular. Many plants, also, are toxic!
It seems emotion and passion is a big part of the way you approach your work. How do you see the application by chefs of the findings of molecular gastronomy without a similar emotion? Will it have the same “scientific” results?
Again, we should not confuse science and cooking! Emotion and passion are part of myself... for science. And one has to consider that chefs are of two kinds : craftpeople and artists. An artist without emotion? This is no artist indeed. A craftman or craftwoman without emotion? First does it exist (after all we are all human beings, ie moved by emotion). Anyway, no chef will have scientific results, because no chef is a scientist. This is a completely other job.
More than that, we should never say that people with a scientific training and working with chefs are scientists. They are not, because they are not producing knowledge, but rather apply the results of science. They are technologists.
You say that molecular gastronomy still has a lot to explore. What paths do you think it will it take and what impact could it have in restaurants?
The paths that we have to use? As any recipe is made of a “definition” and of precisions (old wive tales, etc.), we have to develop both aspects.
What impact on restaurants? Really, I don’t know... but why not the development of the “note by note cooking” trend, with the use of pure chemicals in dishes?
Maybe one of the most controversial aspects of molecular gastronomy is the creation of artificial products. Why is it important to explore this area?
No, the creation of “artificial products” are not results of molecular gastronomy, but they are the result of applications of molecular gastronomy.
Anyway, if you have an orange (or carrot, beef, any product), you are oblige to have its flavour. Now if you make an artificial orange, you can decide for the flavour you want to give. Chefs are no grocers, but cooks!
How can you justify the utilization by a chef of an artificial product (for ex: artificial meat) instead of a “natural” product? What does it bring to the cook and the client?
Same question.
The Michelin Guide is seen by many as “classic” but, as you mentioned once, in fact it recognizes creation and artistry. What’s the role of this and others guides or awards (like the list of 50 Best Restaurants) in the evolution of molecular gastronomy?
The Michelin Guide being classic? Remember that it was one of the first to applaud to Ferran Adria, as soon as in the beginning of the 90’s.
By the way, these guides have influence on chefs, not on science. Be sure that I don’t pay any attention to the world of cooking for science!
Is it possible to speculate how will it be a top restaurant that uses the findings of science in, let’s say, 20 years from now? How would it be your dreamed restaurant? What is your goal?
A restaurant of my dreams ? A different one everyday. As for music : today, we are more happy than before because we can choose between Bach, Mozart, Bethoven, Debussy, Chopin, modern music... It would be awful if we had only Molecular Cooking because it would be a loss of culture. We have to enlarge the choice.
Tomorrow, I would be glad to have more “culinary constructivism” and “note by note” cooking restaurants, but also places with more innovation in the way we eat, we sit, we use tools (forks, knives, sticks, fingers), the way we see food, etc.
Does Hervé This loves cooking as much as science?
No, I prefer science! And this is why I am a scientist, and not a cook (I cook everyday for my family, and be sure that with a teacher such as Pierre Gagnaire and others, I am not so bad). But science! Chemistry! Physics! Physical chemistry!
Why did you introduce Molecular Cuisine in your restaurant? What’s the main individual characteristic of your guests?
I don’t have any restaurant, but rather a laboratory. I am not cooking. Indeed, I am one of the two founding fathers of Molecular Gastronomy (gastronomy means knowledge, not cooking), and with my old friend Nicholas Kurti, it’s true also that we created Molecular Cooking… but we pushed in this direction, showing examples. He was a physicist. I am a chemist. We don’t cook professionally!
How would you describe your cooking style in molecular cuisine?
No style, as I am not cooking
What’s the most challenge do you think in making molecular cuisine? Why?
I don’t understand the sentence.
Where do the materials and the kitchen utensil come from?
I don’t understand the question, but I can say that :
- Molecular Cooking is cooking with “new” ingredients, methods, tools.
- what is new in cooking (liquid nitrogen, rotary evaporator, fritted glass funnel, sodium alginate, etc.) is not new is chemistry or physics!
- my proposal is to ask : why do we cook as we do? In any regards. Then, when the objective is known, we can decide to go on with the traditional ideas, or to change.
Where do you get your inspiration in molecular cuisine from? Could you amplify the process of creating a new course by giving an example?
Again, I am not a cook. But I use new scientific ideas to make inventions, that Pierre Gagnaire is later translating in dishes.
What do you think the biggest pleasure afforded by cooking molecular cuisine? And what about tasting it? Why? What’s the most spectacular molecular cuisine cooked by other chef you have ever had?
Pierre Gagnaire!!!!
What’s paths do you think will Molecular Gastronomy and what impact could it have in future?
Those days, I am introducing “culinary constructivism”, and also the “note by note cooking” trends. The first entirely “note by note” dish of the history of cooking will be shown in Hong Kong next week.
Could you share your best cooking tip with a home enthusiasm trying molecular cuisine?
The best? Try the “chocolate Chantilly” that I invented in 1995.
If you have anything to say to our Chinese readers?
Don’t confuse art and craft, technology and science, technology and technique. Avoid thinking that Nature is good. Let’s examine tradition, let’s ask questions, let’s work hard, in order to improve cooking.
What are the concepts of “note by note cooking” and “culinary constructivism”? Can you explain them by giving us some examples?
First, culinary constructivism : it began one day while working with Pierre Gagnaire. Pierre showed me a dish made of a disk of smoked salmon, with on top a gelly of citrus. The pairing was wonderful, but there was some « heaviness » afterwards, because of the salmon. I proposed to turn it up down, and the same dish was « fresher ».
This led me to propose that cooks work in order to produce explicitly the « laws » of culinary constructions.
Indeed, in this case, as the dish is put on the tongue, you can perceive the odor of the citrus (odorant molecules can escape the gelly and go in the oral cavity, then reach the nose) and the taste of the salmon (taste molecules have to dissolve in water, i.e. saliva). If you turn it, you perceive the odor of the salmon, and the taste of the citrus.
Another example : just put some mayonnaise sauce in a spoon, and eat it. Then, compare with the same, adding a branch of chervil on the mayonnaise : you will have to swallow, and the sensation will be much longer.
More generally, we have to build… also because when the guests perceive the building, the feel implicitly that it was built for them, so that the dishes say « I love you », and who would not love that ?
Moreover, I made an assumtion : if it something is built, it is considered as « beautiful », because it says « I built it for you, then I love you ».
Now, « note by note cooking » : any traditional food (carrots, meat, etc.) are each made of a lot a different compounds, and adding one of these food ingredient in a pan is like adding a whole mixture of compounds, with no control on the mixture. If the mixture is not right, the only possibility is to change the food ingredient, replace the carrot for another carrot, or for a turnip, etc. Indeed chefs know that well, and this is why they add some compounds when there are not happy with the taste of food ingredient : for example, it is frequent to add some sugar to carrots when the sugar content of carrots is not right.
Then, why not just mix compounds in a pan ? This makes a « note by note » dish.
There is first a comparison with music : a carrot, with its various compounds, is like a chord, where you cannot change the notes. Adding some sugar to a carrot is like playing a note added to a chord. And mixing compounds one by one is like playing arpegios, note by note.
There is a comparison with painting : traditionnally, chefs cooked with mixtures, like violet, brown… But it is impossible to make some yellow from a mixture of brown and violet. The « note by note proposal » is like using elementary colors : you can make all colors with them !
The idea of note by note cooking developped since I proposed it in 1994, in Scientific American (April issue). There was a first step in February 2006, when I proposed the Wöhler sauce, that Pierre Gagnaire showed at a press conference at Sketch, in London (UK). This sauce including polyphenols from Syrah was used with a pheasant « à la Castillane ». Soon after, a young chef called Christèle Gendre was (and is still) proposing it at the menu of her restaurant in Paris.
Let’s add some political considerations. Farmers suffer from the low price of their product (carrots, grapes…), and it would be a good idea to help them to fractionnate their product, and make new ingredients with added value. For example, wine is more expansive than grape. The same could be done with any other food product.
But then, how to use the new products ? One has to work in order to prepare the new market. The note by note cooking initiative is a first step in this direction.
Let’s add some technical remark. Many compounds are more « precise » than traditional ones. In particular, when you add some lemon juice to prevent browning of plant products, indeed you don’t know that only ascorbic acid present in lemon juice (vitamin C) is useful, and you suffer from the lemon flavor. Why not instead using pure ascorbic acid ?
In Hong Kong, Pierre Gagnaire will show a wonderful « note by note » dish that we designed after many months of work : it was not so easy to learn the flavour of pure compounds, and how to make a real art piece out of it. Remember that Pierre Gagnaire is not particularly interested in chemistry, and in molecular cooking ; he is only interested in « culinary art », and he never proposes a dish when it’s not up the level that he implicitly decides : the highest. Remember also that the only question of Pierre is « flavour », pleasure, happiness through dishes.
And, what’s the relationship between “note by note cooking” and Molecular Gastronomy?
Indeed there is no direct relationship. The relationship is only through me : I am doing molecular gastronomy… and aside, I also proposed the idea.
I know that Courses on Molecular Gastronomy (from experiments to calculation) are hold in many universities abroad now. How are they getting along? What’s the purpose of such courses?
The subtitle « From experiments to calculation » is only the one I use myself, for my courses on molecular gastronomy, that you can now follow on internet : http://www.agroparistech.fr/mmip/tice/agrovideo/this/
But it is true that other countries than France introduced curriculum in molecular gastronomy : Denmark, Korea, USA, Australia, Finland… How are they getting around ? I don’t know : I am not making myself these courses. But you could ask the people in charge of them.
Could you introduce your laboratory and your team simply? Could you show us some images of your laboratory?
Introduce my laboratory and my team ? I would prefer to say "our laboratory", and "our team".
The INRA Molecular Gastronomy team is one of the teams of the Laboratory for analytical physical chemistry of AgroParisTech Paris. It is a mixed unit INRA and AgroParisTech : INRA is the main « agronomy » scientific agency of France, and AgroParisTech is the most important teaching center for agronomy in France (it is a « grande école », let’s say one of the top universities, like MIT in the US, or Berkely, or Imperial College in the UK).
Our team has a very fluctuant number of people, from 3 to 25, depending on the time of the year (now 7).
A personal question, now I know clearly that you are not a cook. However, do you cook in daily life? If you do, how are the dishes? I think many readers are so interested in it.
Yes, I am the one who cooks daily at home. How are the dishes? Not bad, I hope… as technically, I have to problem to make very difficult things (I can make 1 cubic meter of whipped egg white with one egg, or 10 liters of soufflé with only 300 gramms of soufflé preparation). But this is nothing. Indeed, from the art point of view, I have a very good teacher : Pierre Gagnaire!
Indeed, I was yesterday invited by him at his countryside house, and I made for all guests a kougelhopf ; in another message, I am sending a movie where he says that this was his best ;-)
I am a part of the chemistry club at my university, and think that an excellent project for our club could stem from your research. I would like to ask you for your advice in how carry out analysis of aromatic molecules in wine, scotch, and cheeses. I think that carrying out analysis (LC-MS) of various wine and cheese samples and coupling information about these with tasting could bring the public into closer contact with science while enjoying wine and cheese.
If you are chemist, don’t forget that science is indeed calculations, not experiment. This is why I propose to make distinctions between « chemistry technique », « chemistry technology », and « chemistry » (for the last one, adding the word « science » would make a pleonasm »).
Analyzing odorant molecules (please use odorant rather than aromatic, because one should call aromatic only when there are aromas, i.e. the odor of aromatic plant) is fine, but I would use GS MS rather than LC MS, as odorant molecules are generally hydrophobic, contrary to taste molecules.
Moreover, remember that molecular gastronomy is not the science of food ingredients. Analysing cheese, wine, whisky is food science, but not molecular gastronomy (molecular gastronomy means « looking for the mechanisms of phenomena that occur during culinary transformations »).
Please, be also aware that in English, flavor is the overall sensation, based on a mixture of taste, odor, trigeminal sensations, consistency (different from texture), temperature..
Best regards, celebrate chemistry !
Molecular cuisine has come so far with the use of liquid nitrogen, cooking under vacuum, eating foams, jellies, etc. What next after this? Is there a peak to the application of molecular gastronomy in the kitchen? How more will it develop?
The definition of molecular cooking is « using new tools, ingredients, methods ». I hope that when everybody will have moved, we can go into new territories, such as « Culinary constructivism » or « Note by Note cooking » (see my book Building a Meal, Columbia University Press)
Will we reach the state where synthetic food is being consumed? If so, are we really eating food per say? What might be the controversies?
The main issue is « synthetic ». What does it mean ? Indeed, when you use starch, water and sugar to make a dough, you use products extracted from raw materials, and you make food. If you mean « synthetic » this way, why not… as it is done currently.
However, if you mean all molecules being synthetized chemically, then no, certainly no : this would be nonsence… in particular nonsens economically.
The application of this science strives for change in the way people cook and eat. Therefore the use of the right usensils is very important. For example, a whisk might not be an ideal tool to produce froth, there is something more efficient. But correct me if I'm wrong, molecular cuisine is very expensive because of the high tech tools used. Therefore, how would the general public who cannot afford expensive tools or dine at these restaurants apply this science to eat and cook better?
No, molecular cooking is NOT expensive. Tools in labs have no reason to be more or less cheep. Consider microwaves ovens : their cost was about 1000 dollars, at the beginning, and you can now get them for only 50 dollars in Europe. This is because so many people buy them. It can be the same with new tools.
Concerning ingredients, I don’t see why gelling agents from algae would cost more than gelatine. In order to prvent browning, for exemple, ascorbic acid is much cheaper than lemon juice.
Etc.
A few acclaimed chefs are against the use of "molecular gastronomy" although it is clear that they are applying the knowledge of molecular gastronomy in their cooking. What is your comment on that?
No comment : dogs bark, and then ? I have so many interesting things to do !
Many restaurants now have a tendency to blow up the presentation of their food. Sometimes, one cannot even make out what he is eating. Do you think the application of molecular gastronomy using high tech machines and exotic ingredients justifies them to do so?
I am not sure to understand the question.
You started out by collecting old wives tales, saying and etc. Have you solved all of that? And how do you look for new theories to test?
I have now more than 25.000 « culinary precisions », and it takes a very long time to check correctly one of them. No, certainly no : I didn’t checked all of them !
How do I look for new theories to test ? Indeed, my daily work is not in this way. See please the attached paper.
When did you first make the connection in your life between chemistry and gastronomy?
There were two instances really, but it was on 16 March 1980 that I decided to begin studying culinary old wives tales because of a cheese soufflé. It was a Roquefort cheese soufflé whose recipe said to divide the yolks two-by-two. I said, “Why do this?” so I did not prepare two-by-two; and, the soufflé was a failure. This is most fortunate, because the next Sunday other friends were over for a meal. This was an habit that I had since a very long time: cooking for friends. For example, when I was a student, friends were coming, we were supposed to prepare physics and chemistry exams, but indeed we worked not much during these gatherings… but we had good dinners. Anyway I decided to make it again, the soufflé. When I had the recipe, there was a sentence, “add the yolk two-by-two.”
At that time I said, “Oh, perhaps this is the reason of the failure.” If the two-by-two was not so good, I decided to do one-by-one instead of two-by-two; and, the soufflé was better! But I know now that it was because I knew how to make this particular soufflé, and not because of the two-by-two. The next day, the 24th of March 1980, I did not go to the office; and, I took a blue notebook and wrote my name and address like a lab book in case I might lose it.
I wrote the sentence, “It’s interesting there are old wives’ tales in the kitchen; we should collect them and make tests.” Now I have more than 25,000 of these; I call them “culinary precisions” because you know a saying is not an old wives’ tale. A proverb is different. A tip is different. A method is different. So, in order to apply one name for all these, I proposed some years ago to call them “precisions.”
Is there any support within chemistry to the claim that one should allow a bottle of wine to “breathe” after opening it? Is this a myth?
I don’t study much bread, wine, beer, cheese or sausage. This is not cooking; this is fermentation - too difficult for me. I’m a chemist.
Having said that, when I met my wife, there was a godfather who had a cellar that was not stolen by the Germans during the war because the cellar was in the garden, not under the house. I was fortunate to drink a Haut Brion wine from 1931! – and this wine, when you opened the bottle you had an awful burnt rubber smell. After some seconds this evaporated and then the wine was perfect. So, this “breathing” is a reality.
What do you consider an important contribution or discovery that you have made within your field?
My NEXT one. What is the use of being “proud” of something that you did? I prefer working in the hope that something very new will appear. In science, discovery is a big pleasure, but remember: lift a corner of the great veil, as said Albert Einstein! It is funny that when you make research, in a science lab, you make discoveries all the time if your mind is open to seeing what you don’t see. You can also create concepts, theoretical ones, that are like glasses that you put in front of the eyes of your mind, and that change the look that you have on the world.
I remember a very good student, (she was well educated), crying when I told her that we don’t know what we were looking for, in science. Of course, we have reasonable and rational programs, but if I can find something that I cannot understand, then immediately I will drop all activities and study this understandable thing. So, the next will be the most important.
You seem to be well known for your simple-yet-insightful demonstrations that you have given. Would you have an experiment that a cook at home in his kitchen might be able to do to learn something more about cooking and food?
the most exciting discovery that I did was to put fruits like plums in various glasses full of water, but with different quantities of sugar dissolved. In light syrups, the fruits sink, but in concentrated syrups, the fruits float. This is of course linked with density, but when you wait, the fruits in light syrups swell (by osmosis) and explode, whereas they shrink in concentrated syrups.
And this experiment is useful to know how to make a syrup of the exact concentration for preserving fruits : put them in concentrated syrup and add slowly water, until they begin sinking : the osmotic pressure is then nil, so that they will keep their shape and consistency.
1) What’s your favorite quote?
See the document on my blog : http://hervethis.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-11-21T21%3A49%3A00%2B01%3A00&max-results=7
In the screen of my computer, when it’s “sleeping”, there is a sentence “We are what we do; then what is your agenda?”
2) What’s your first thought when you wake up in the morning?
Lest’s go to the lab!
3) With what kind of thoughts are you going to bed at night?
When I am going to sleep, I want to be fast the next day, so that I can do new things.
At night, I am sleeping (very few, because I have so many exciting things to do when I am awake.
4) What’s “inspiration” for you?
Work hard! Find methods for being smart and use them extensively.
5) What “fills” you inside and helps you continuing writing?
Celebrate chemistry in general, and Knowledge in particular!
Give pleasure to others so that they are happy.
Never forget to smile, as life is wonderful.
6) Which element of your personality, if any, raises obstacles in writing?
I am never happy of what I am producing, and I am very sad not to write as well as Rabelais! But it is also faire to say that even if I am writing continuously (see below), writing is not my job anyway…
7) How many hours per day do you “spend” writing?
It depends on what you name “writing”. I realized recently that calculation in science is indeed writing. Then, I am writing all day long except for 5 hrs about (sleep)
8) What do you love in people / humans?
The summum of intelligence is kindness and honesty!
9) What do you consider as “unforgivable”?
I prefer answering to question 9!
10) What’s happiness for you, as a person?
Doing things, and chemistry in particular
11) What’s the worst thing could happen to a person?
Pain, because too much makes you unable to do thing
12) Please name 3 to 5 books that influenced most your personality
Rabelais
La tentation de Saint Antoine, Flaubert
La rhétorique, Aristote
Le Théétete, Platon
Diderot, Jacques le Fataliste
Voltaire, Micromégas
Lavoisier, Traité élémentaire de chimie
Diderot, Paradoxe sur le comédien
13) Please suggest 3 to 5 books that parents should buy/read toy their children.
Les sorcières sont NRV, Yak Rivais
Mathilda, Roald Dahl
Le bon gros géant, Roald Dahl
Les lettres de mon Moulin, Daudet
La casserole des enfants, H. This ;-)
14) Please name 3 to 5 books that you would take with you in isolation (let’s say in a desert island)
Rabelais
Paper for writing books
15) Please name 3 to 5 books that you’ve read (because you wanted to) more than once
La recherché du temps perdu, Proust (dozens of times)
Aristote, La rhétorique
The complete works of Plato
And so many others!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16) Please name 3 to 5 books you own and you’ve made the most underlines and write the most notes on their pages,
Cyrano de Bergerac (I mean the author, not the book having this title)
La rhétorique, Aristote
Rableais
La physiologie du gout, Jean-Anthelme Brillat Savarin
17) Please name 3 to 5 books that you’ve started but never finished (so far)
La conjuration des imbeciles : I hate this kind of humor
18) Please name 3 to 5 “classic” works that you’ve never read.
Keats and most non French classics
19) Please name some books that you own more than once (probably in different editions)
La physiologie du gout, Brillat Savarin
Les fables, La Fontaine
Diderot, Collected works
La rhétorique
La poétique
Platon
20) Please name a book that you would like to be the original author.
Rabelais
21) Please name the title of the book you’ve been reading nowadays
I try not to read, and instead to write!
• What is the future of molecular gastronomy?
Molecular Gastronomy being a science, there is no end. Indeed, the scientific method (also called hypothetico-deductive, or experimental method) is to :
- identify a phenomenon
- describe it quantatively
- link datas in laws
- find “explanations” of these laws, i.e mechanisms
- make experimental predictions based on the theories made up from all laws
- test experimentally the predicitions, in the hope that they will be refuted, so that new ideas can come, and allow the rectification of the theory (because any theory, being a “reduced model” of reality, is indeed wrong, let’s say insufficient!).
- go back to number 2, and go on for ever.
Since MG began, it developed with many works, but there are more and more to do. Attached, a paper where I am proposing, for example, a specific direction, of “comparative MG”. Here, I have more than 25.000 “culinary precisions” collected, but if people in various countries do the same work, this will be wonderful.
You didn’t ask the future of “molecular cooking”, and then the answer is different : soon (the best) or later, when the job of introducing new tools, ingredients and methods will be over, a new culinary trend will appear (I hope that it will be the “note by note cooking”), and molecular cooking will be like fusion cooking, medieval cooking, nouvelle cuisine, and all these trends, which are aggregated to the cultural background.
• what is the future of innovative cuisine? synthetic food?
Innovative cuisine? Cuisine is always innovative, for some part. The the fulture is bright!
Synthetic food? I don’t know what it is really. Synthetic food? I don’t know either.
• if chefs of the future concentrate on chemistry and physics, will this further alienate people from understanding where food comes from, currently a major problem in England and America?
Chefs cannot concentrate on chemistry and physics. Look at electric oven. Is this “physics”? Look at sugar : is this chemistry?
For all the history of cooking, chefs used the result of technology, and technology was based on chemistry and physics. There is nothing new in principle indeed, except perhaps some acceleration in the technology process.
Indeed, there is the question of chemistry, physics, and the applications of sciences. Chefs don’t and will never do chemistry or physics, because this means looking for the mechanisms of phenomena using the scientific method. The purpose is understanding through an extensive use of calculations. To my knowledge, no chef is doing such job… There is much confusion here!
Yes, the question of the origin is important, as it was well demonstrated that in some cases (bread, beer, sausages, cheese, wines…) the “terroir” is very important. Observe please that most terroir products are linked to fermentation, and microorganisms, and climate.
But imagine that you cook using phenolics from Syrah. Depending on where the syrah was cultivated, the by products will be differents… because the “impurities” are very important… Brown sugar is different depending on where and how it was made.
Finally, using the results of technology (technology which was using the results of science, ie chemistry or physics) has nothing to do with origin. If you use some foie gras from a certain part of Alsace and you make a foie gras Chantilly, the result will probably different from using a foie gras from the Gers. If you make a tomato sherbet with liquid nitrogen, the flavour depends obviously on the origin of tomatoes.
• will there be a bigger focus on healthy eating?
This question is difficult, because healthy eating is a very old story : even Comus -1742!- was discussing it, or Baptista Platina, earlier.
And even “healthy eating” is a strange expression : can you imagine “unhealthy eating”? I fear that the industry is trying to sell us things…
Moreover, we behave incoherently about health and eating. Nobody cares about trans fatty acids in chocolate : what we want is our good old chocolate. Imagine that there were a law against smoked salmon (indeed it is full of cancerogenic products), or sage, or nutmeg (remember the last chapter in Burroughts book on addiction!), etc.
• an increased focus on sustainability?
This is a very important question. Some years ago, copper was measured in the soils of wineyards… and our ancestors used heavy loads. There is no need to add some… and we obviously have to do better.
This is only one example. If we can behave more rationally, we have to. And this is why I am saying everywhere in the world for not 30 years that it is a big mistake that we cook as we do… and the energy waste is up to 80%, everyday, by billions of people. We certainly have to improve, and I hope that the future energy crisis will help me to make people change their way in this regard.
• do you see innovative cooking taking part all over the world or is this simply a Western ideal?
Indeed, one should know that “I don’t care” about luxury restaurants, and I am only using them so that the trend is reaching anybody.
I am not paid by the French government to improve the food of the rich people, but of everybody, and the question of “home economics” is very important for me. This is why, in particular, I introduced programs for kids in schools for many years, now, in collaboration with the Ministry of Public Education.
Remember the question of energy above : if you are poor, what’s the use of loosing 80 percent of the energy that you use! Remember that you have to pay for this energy! If you can make (and you can indeed: this is the chocolate Chantilly) a chocolate mousse without eggs, why paying for eggs?
This question of home economics is for everybody.
And if you are living in a country where “traditional food” is lacking, why not using some chemical knowledge to transform “non edible” plants? Knowledge, in general, and chemistry in particular is helpful!
• what are your thoughts on those chefs who seek to emulate innovative cuisine but don't have the knowledge or understanding, thereby creating a misunderstanding generally of this type of cuisine and therefore a mockery?
I concentrate my strength on what I can change: distributing knowledge to help people improve!
• what do you base your sensorial physiology conclusions on? Why have we been wrong about smell and taste?
Oooo! This is a big question… that I discussed on many papers in the future, and more recently I even organized a special session at the Académie d’agriculture de France. I base my sensory conclusions on (good) scientific papers, that it is my job to read daily… and also to the chemical knowledge that I am trying to get. Many of my friends are among the best sensory physiologists of the world.
1. What has motivated you to become a molecular gastronomy researcher?
Indeed, since I was 6 years old, I wanted to be a chemist. With passion, I was doing chemistry and physics in my home, having slowly created there a wonderful lab that I still have.
At that time, I also cooked, and it is not surprising that the two activities mixed, even if I would like today to contribute also to some research on the chemistry of natural products, as I feel that this field is very important both scientifically and technologically.
The 16th of March 1980, I became involved in what would be called later (in 1988) Molecular Gastronomy because of a cheese soufflé : the recipes advised to add the yolks two by two... and the tests showed that it had no influence. But the 23rd of March 1980, I decided to collect the French "culinary precisions" (i.e. culinary old wive tales, proverbs, tips, methods, proverbs...). I now have more than 25 000, only for French cuisine!
2. How has the gastronomy molecular study contributed to the future?
Since the formal creation of Molecular Gastronomy, in 1988, we set up a frame for future research, and identified a special field that was regularly forgotten, i.e. the physical and chemical investigation of the mechanisms of phenomena occuring during cooking. As a branch of science, Molecular Gastronomy will have no end, because the scientific process goes in more and more details.
But Molecular Gastronomy is also important both from a technological point of view, and from an educational point of view.
Technologically, it was very important that we proposed the use in the kitchen of new hardware, new tools, new ingredients and new methods : this is Molecular Cooking (also sometimes called Molecular Cooking, or Molecular Cookery, now also Technoemotional cuisine).
This is a first step. Now, I am trying to introduce "culinary constructivism", and Note by Note cooking.
Educationnally, we introduced new reasoned activities in school, colleges and universities. Molecular Gastronomy courses are important because they are appealing for students of all ages. They understand the usefulness of science, and better perceived the relationship between science, technology, technique, art.
3. The scientific study on the procedures used in the kitchen demystify cooking itself, putting down the concept which consists in the belief that some people have the ability to cook and others don´t?
Yes, this is an important act of faith to recognize that one can make better technical work understanding what one do ! In the 80's, when we began our work, there was secrecy in culinary circles... but indeed there is no such thing for science. We investigate what is hidden, and distribute the information as much as possible.
Indeed, among culinary precisions, many are strange, and this leads to a new study of why our ancestors transmitted wrong information. This needs sociology, history, anthropology... but this study is very exciting. This was the topic of the Course on Molecular Gastronomy 2010, in January 2010 (a book is published next week from the Course).
And also, when you recognize that cooking is (1) creating a social link (between the cook and the guests, but also between the guests), (2) involving art ("good" means "beautiful to eat", as explained extensively in my book Cooking, a quintessenciaal art), (3) technique, you understand that you need to learn the three components to be successful in the kitchen. I hate the aphorism by Brillat-Savarin saying that you can become a cook, but you need to be born as a "rotisseur" (roaster) : my idea is that everybody can learn... as long as she or he learns and work hard!
4. In molecular gastronomy, does the kitchen´s main character continue to be the chef or, now, is the chemical-physician (who commands the process), or the success will depend on their team work? How does this partnership between chefs and scientists work?
This question shows that you make a confusion between Molecular Gastronomy (science) and Molecular Cooking (cooking).
Molecular Gastronomy is achieved only in laboratories, only by scientists. On the other hand, Molecular Cooking is achieved only in kitchen, and only by chefs ! Remember that you need art for Cooking, and in particular for Molecular Cooking.
Indeed, the introduction of Molecular Cooking creating a new position, of "culinary technologists", or "culinary engineers", i.e. people that can understand the fresh results of science in order to make technology transfers, so that they can help chefs (artists) to put this knowledge in action in their kitchen.
In this regard, there is no relationship between science and art, between molecular gastronomy and chefs. One need an intermediate. Even in my "play" with my intimate friend Pierre Gagnaire, when I am proposing a new idea (there is one invention per month for now ten years), I am not working as a scientist, but rather as a technologists. Of course, being a scientist, I should not do that, but I feel that it is important, at this point of time, how important the results of science can be. And also, I do it for Pierre!
5. How you define the joint between gastronomy and science?
Contrary to a wrong idea, gastonomy is not cooking! And in particular, it is not high cuisine.
Gastronomy is defined as the reasoned knowledge of man's nourishment. It is a knowledge!
In this regard, expressions such as "gastronomic restaurants" are mistakes.
Within the area of gastronomy (knowledge), you find history (historical gastronomy), sociology (sociological gastronomy), litterature (gastronomical litterature)... and science : Molecular Gastronomy.
6. What are the best chefs and restaurants in molecular gastronomy segment?
I hate the idea of "best". Take a comparison with music. Even if some days I am preferring Bach to Mozart, some other days I prefer Mozart, or Debussy. Indeed, preferences are not transitive : you have the right to prefer raspberries to strawberries, strawberries to blackcurrants, but blackcurrant to raspberries: finally, you cannot say which one you prefer.
Then, what would be the criteria of "best" ? Indeed I say very firmly that the ranking done by the English magazine Restaurants is an awful thing, from all point of views. And this year ranking is worst than other years.
I prefer telling you that there are some very interesting people in the world, doing (not molecular gastronomy) molecular cooking, such as my friend Pierre Gagnaire, but also many others : you know their names, Ferran Adria, Heston Blumenthal, Denis Martin, René Redzepi, Alex Atala, Sang-Hoon Degeimbre...
On my internet site, I wrote :
"As I hate ranking, because it is unfair and intellectually silly, I make here a proposal, with invitation for you to contribute.
1. ranking is silly as art is concerned, as one can only say "I love", or "I don't like".
2. ranking is silly, as 2+2=4 is not a question of democracy
3. ranking is silly as choices can be "intransitive" : you can prefer raspberries to strawberries, strawberries to blackcurrant, and blackcurrant to raspberries
4. and so many other reasons that can be very surprised to see that smart people do it!
This is why, as restaurants are concerned, I propose to make a simple list (with names of people voting for it, so that it's clear). Note that I was in more places than that, but that I give only the name of good places
I begin :
Pierre Gagnaire : he is my friend, first, so that you cannot trust me, but you can trust me when I say that he a real great artist.
Pascal Barbot : wonderful, modest, many ideas, always using a condiment, but not restricted to it
Michel Bras : I like this guy, and this artistic precision; I was not there recently, alas
Paul Bocuse : I was there many years ago, so that I cannot say anything
François Pasteau, l'Epi Dupin : always very interesting, so cheap... that it is always full. Make your reservation well in advance.
Alex Atala : a wonderful guy, with a lot of sensibility
Grant Achatz : a lot to say, very interesting... and this pushes me to go in another direction for describing meals, ie. giving more details, as this list above is clearly useless
More to come.
And will you contribute? Please leave your comments.
"
7. In your work, you bring the molecular gastronomy to the real world, making the reader feel comfortable and capable to understand it. Why do you treat the subject that way, while some of the chefs treat it like if it were something inaccessible, depriving others of this knowledge?
I am sorry to be still at the Century of Enlightment. I feel that the work of philosophers like Voltaire, Diderot, and others is not fishished, and I want (yes, this is naively utopic) a better world for my children. Science, in particular, and Knowledge in general, are wonderful because they are our better chance against intolerance. Sharing knowledge is a way to promote friendship, collaboration, advancement, ideas, pleasure, peace...
When people work together, they don't fight. When people love their wonderful job, they are happy.
And, moreover, we have in view some Great Men and Women of the past, whose trail has to be followed. Think of wonderful individuals such as Lavoisier, father of modern chemistry, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, Denis Diderot, and so many others !
In the end, about clarity, I made to myself a "law" to follow the idea from the physicist François Arago : "La clarté est la politesse de ceux qui s''expriment en public" (Clarity is the politeness of all those who speak in front of an audience). I don't care that my audience is considering me as smart, or knowledgeable; I want to give them the results of scientific studies.
8. Do you think the Universities should include the molecular gastronomy (and, therefore, the kitchen´s chemical-physical principles) in the chef´s academic?
Yes, thousand time yes! And this is currently under development in many countries of the world.
In France and in Canada, the culinary curriculum changed some years ago.
But this move is not only for chefs, but also for students of science!
9. Does the introduction to the chemical-physical studies, at the Universities, mean an evolution to the gastronomy studies?
I don't know. Wait (actively) and see. But I am pushing in this direction very strongly.
10. How is a chef recognized when he/she knows the molecular gastronomy principles? Can these principles be applied according to the regional characteristics of each gastronomy or should it be reserved to the vanguard gastronomy?
This question is difficult. Some chefs, as Pierre Gagnaire, are very modern, at the cutting edge of Molecular Gastronomy knowledge, but they don't "show" molecular cuisine skills. Pierre, in particular, is an artist, and he is doing Pierre's cuisine. The results of science and technology are only tools for him. There will never be any smokes, or explosions, etc. in his restaurants; rather he wants the guest to share an idea of Beauty (this is my own interpretation, of course).
For others, the appearance of modernity is more important. There are many different cases.
But remember that Molecular Cooking means using modern techniques only. Then you can make a molecular cassoulet, for example, without the guests seeing any difference !
Indeed, some inventions of mine that I like are those that anybody can do very cheaply at home, such as the Chocolat Chantilly, the Kientzheim Sauce, or the Egg at 67°C, the Wind Crystals, etc. Even children can make them, and they don't ask for any particular hardware or ingredient.
11. What do you have to say to the news chefs that are starting their studies in molecular gastronomy?
Never hesitate to ask questions. Try, work, have fun, and don't forget that the main point of cooking is giving pleasure to your guests ! Yes, cooking, it's love, art and technique.
1 – You said that talent is more important to cook than technique. In your opinion, who are the most talented chefs today? Why?
I am not sure that I said that talent is more than technique. I said that art and love are more important than technique. Of course, you need to know how to play the piano in order to create some music, but if you knew how to move the fingers and have no music to play, there would be no music at all.
The "most talented chefs" ? I really cannot answer because I did not had the pleasure to visit them all.
Moreover, as style is concerned, you cannot make a scale. Sometimes, I prefer and Brueghel to Delacroix, or to Rubens, but why couldn't I love them all, at the same time ?
More generally, when something is multifactorial, you cannot rank ! And when you say "I prefer", it has no general value.
But I can tell you that I think that my friend Pierre Gagnaire is a great artist!
2 – You also said that food is art. Which dishes you have tried that you would say are the “state-of-the-art”? Could you describe them?
Indeed I said that cooking has an artistic component (sometimes!).
I am not sure to understand really the question, because I feel (perhaps I am wrong) that the English expression "state of the art" does not refer to art, but to any field.
What artists produce today is state of the art, isn't it?
3 – Why is so important to some chefs working with technology research?
It is NOT important. Sometimes, Picasso was using only a pencil, a charcoal, to make a drawing. There was no need of brushes, colors, etc.
And I don't understand "technology research".
What I can say is that if a foam is to be produced, then it is logical to use technical systems that make foams easily. If you want to heat something, it is obvious that you should use the right heating tool, etc.
There is no reason why chefs should use Middle Age tools, when modern tools, appropriate to their use, are at hand, no ?
4 – What kind of culinary is more advanced today? The molecular cuisine? Why?
Molecular Cuisine is "old", as we proposed it in the early 80's. Today, I am promoting something much more interesting, i.e. "note by note cooking".
(could you please explain what exacly “molecular cuisine” means?)
"Molecular cuisine" is : cooking with "new" tools, new ingredients, new methods. Indeed "new" in this case means more or less what was not in kitchens in the 70's.
5 - Which country is ahead in molecular cuisine? Why?
I don't think that this question is right. Nobody counted the number of "molecular chefs". Moreover, imagine that a country would cook molecularly bad food. Should we then rank it first?
6 – You said cooking is strange because it’s an activity that you start without knowing the goal. Could you explain it better?
I said that recipes are strangely written. Generally, if you want to go something, you need to know that you want to go there. Then you define rationally the transportation system that you should use. For example, it would be a pity to walk in order to go from Paris to Sao Paulo, but on the other hand, it would be unsane to use a plane in order to move by 100 meters.
This applies to the technical component of cooking. If I don't know what I should produce, then I cannot decide how to make it... and tradition is NOT a right way to decide (remember that slavery was traditional for a long time!).
More over, there is the question of "social link" and of "art". We should be given the explanation of these aspects of dishes first. Which "taste" should be reached (and I would even add "why?")?
7 - Why the same recipe produces diferent results according to the cook? Do you believe the improvisation has an important role in the kitchen?
Different cooks obtain different results exactly because when different painters paint (for example) Mary and Jesus Christ, they make different paintings.
Improvisation? It is an option, not a rule !
8 – You mentioned some devices very common in laboratories that could be used in the kitchen to save time and energy. I am not familiar with those devices, so, I’d like to ask you to writte their names. Do you mind?
- You talked about the one that is used to make emulsions in the lab : sonication, i.e. using ultrasounds, that make very efficiently emulsions
- Another one is used to take off the fat of a steak (in the lab) : I don't see what you mean. I discussed the one (decanting bulb) to take off the fat out of a stock, not a steak.
- The last one is used to clarify (in the lab): good filters!
9 - Why those devices are not used in the kitchen? It’s cultural or it’s too expensive? What about the induccion? Why it’s not popular yet?
The devices are not traditional, on one hand, and also they are not perfectly adapted to cooking, because sometimes they are made of glass, so that they can break. This is why I am putting pressure on hardware companies to adapt them for culinary activities. It is not a question of price, as they can be very cheap.
Induction : it is not so popular, because it was expensive, but recently it could see a induction device in a supermarket for a very cheap price!
I am not sure that I said that talent is more than technique. I said that art and love are more important than technique. OK, BUT ART IS LINKED TO TALENT, ISN’T IT? OR IT’S MORE RELATED TO CREATIVITY?
I hate the word "talent", because I only trust "work". I also hate the word "creativity", because I think that, again, it is work.
Art it art, which means more or less being able to produce emotion. Contrary to a very popular idea, I don't think that it can be achieved by snapping the fingers. It's huge work!!!!
The "most talented chefs" ? I really cannot answer because I did not had the pleasure to visit them all. OK, BUT IS THERE ANY TALENTED CHEF THAT YOU ADMIRE? (BESIDES YOUR FRIEND)
Here, the big issue is "admire". I would say that I like the work of some that I visited, such as Alex Atala, Pascal Barbot, the chef of the Mandarin oriental in Hong Kong (the Chinese, the German... and Pierre), Michel Bras, and some others that I mention here : http://sites.google.com/site/travauxdehervethis/Home/a-list-of-wonderful-restaurants
2 – You also said that food is art. Which dishes you have tried that you would say are the “state-of-the-art”? Could you describe them?
SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION. I AM TALKING ABOUT “THE STATE OF THE ART” IN GASTRONOMY. IS THERE ANY DISH YOU’VE TRIED YOU’D CLASSIFY LIKE THIS?
Do you really discuss the question of state of the art in GASTRONOMY, or in MOLECULAR GASTRONOMY or in COOKING?
3 – Why is so important to some chefs working with technology research?
It is NOT important. Sometimes, Picasso was using only a pencil, a charcoal, to make a drawing. There was no need of brushes, colors, etc. And I don't understand "technology research". SURE, YOU ARE COMPLETELY RIGHT. BUT YOU MENTIONED THAT FERRAN ADRIÀ AND HESTON BLUMENTAL WORK WITH TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH (THAT’S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, FORGIVE ME IF I AM WRONG).
SO, I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHY IT’S IMPORTANT TO THEM TO DO THAT. MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY OPENS NEW POSSIBILITIES?
You're right, it is true that Ferran or Heston use what it is appropriate to call "modern technique", call them "molecular technique" if you prefer. Why it is important for them to do it ? Because modern technique can make many things that traditional don't. For exemple, if you are making a pineapple bavarois with gelatine, it's a failure, because an enzyme in the fresh fruit is destroying gelatine. Instead, you can use agar... and achieve the success. The same with liquid nitrogen : it can make many different things.
More generally, technology is the activity that can use science to make new techniques. And if you have new techniques, you can make new things.
The same as with synthetizers in music : using them, you can make the sound of violin or piano... but also many other sounds.
Molecular Cuisine is "old", as we proposed it in the early 80's. Today, I am promoting something much more interesting, i.e. "note by note cooking".
THE “NOTE BY NOTE COOKING” IS REALLY INTERESTING (WE TALKED ABOUT THAT). BUT THE RESTAURANTS DON’T DO THAT YET, RIGHT? SO, WHAT KIND OF CULINARY IS THE MOST ADVANCED TODAY? I GUESS IT’S STILL THE MOLECULAR ONE (MAY BE I AM WRONG).
Indeed Note by Note Cooking was done once by Pierre Gagnaire in 2008, than in May 2010 by Hubert Maetz, in Strasbourg, for a French-German-Japanese scientific meeting.
More recently, a whole dinner was done by the chefs/professors of the Cordon bleu school in Paris (see their site and ask them).
Very soon, Potel et Chabot (JP Biffi) is creating a NbNC menu, and more and more chefs are interested.
Not, it's not Molecular Cuisine any longer. The idea is not to use only modern tools, ingredients or methods, but rather to make dishes compound by compound, in order to make all aspects of dishes, taste, odor, color, shape, etc.
5 - Which country is ahead in molecular cuisine? Why?
MANY EXPERTS SAY THERE IS A LEADERSHIP OF SPAIN. I GUESS YOU DON’T AGREE.
As far as I can see, I wouldn't say that Spain is particularly in advance. By the way, how would you be sure of it ? I want figures!!!! And again, if you use modern techniques to make bad dishes, it is not very interesting (I am not saying that Spanish people are doing bad cuisine!).
But remember that chefs such as the Conticinis brother in France, or Raymond Blanc, in UK, were much before Ferran.
Indeed the reputation of Spain is based on some active chefs, and also a popular article by an guy writing provocatively in the New York Times that French cuisine was over. But what is written in a newspaper is not always true, as you know!!!!!
Behind all this, you have questions of money, because tourists go where the press is saying that there is something "new". New is not a garantee of quality, as I said.
And again, I am not interested in feelings, but only on facts. Never the French chefs were so active as today! But as Mesa Tendencias showed, there were some interesting things there also. And in Tokyo, and in Belgium, and in etc.
Finally, yes, I don't agree at what "experts" (who are they ? what are they trying to sell?) say. I am asking them data!
But indeed, in the end, again, you cannot compare. Each time that you have something multifactorial, you cannot compare !!!!!!!!! Mozart is not better than Bach, and Delacroix is not better than Picasso. And Ferran is not better than Heston. And... we should compare only what is comparable.
Never admit to say "it is better "instead of " I prefer"!
1) Firstly, why were you personally drawn to the science of cooking((the expression science of cooking is wrong, as there is not "science OF cooking" ; this is why the correct expression "molecular gastronomy" as introduced)) and culinary transformations originally and who were your main influences?
I was intererested in molecular gastronomy because I realized that some information transmitted for centuries is wrong; in order to correct it, I understood that investigation was needed.
Concerning influences, I don’t really like saying that I have an ‘influence’. In my lab in Paris I have a poster that says: “No God, No Master”. Take Nicholas Kurti, for example, he was certainly not my ‘Master’- he was my friend. Even he didn’t really have an influence on me, and even worse, I actually resisted the influence that he could have had on me. I remember when we used to discuss culinary dictums together he would always ask me why I even bothered testing them!
2) But you were doing very different things weren’t you?
Yes, we were. It was a pity because he was smart and if I had been more open I would have benefitted more from his work and ideas. In reality, I don’t like the idea of having ‘influences’ or of claiming that my work is influenced by someone, or something. When Nicholas was alive, I didn’t want him to be my guide- it’s a pity really, but remember that I am a physical chemist, and he was a physicist. I prefer anyway the idea of doing my own science, because I have the feeling that having two "feet" is better than only one.
3) It seems that the ‘Science of Food’ is not a new subject. Through the ages there have been many notable scientists who have been interested in food and cooking. In your opinion, who was the key contributor to the field of culinary science and why?
This question is asked a lot! But firstly of all, I need to clarify that the ‘Science of Food’ is not Molecular Gastronomy. Molecular Gastronomy is a subdivision of Food Science.. More precisely, it is the scientfic investigation of phenomena occurring during food (and here there is something to be discussed) transormations.
There have been many notable scientists in this field. Lavoisier was very important (he studied meat stock), as were people like Braconnot (who studied pectins and caramels). Rumford was also important, but less important than Nicholas made him out to have been. He actually took part of Lavoisier’s paper on stock preparation and translated it exactly! On the other hand, Papin, for example, was not a ‘pioneer’. He was an inventor (best known for his pioneering steam digester – the forerunner of the pressure cooker). What he was doing was technology, and not science. Brillat-Savarin was not a pioneer either. He was a writer and his book – La Physiologie du Gout – contains little, if any, physiology. There is no science in it and the only reason the word ‘physiology’ was used in the title was to give the book scientific colour.
4) Why do you think that most of these scientists – the ‘forerunners’ – are French?
I don't think that they are French. Some of them are French, but many are also English, or German.
Anyway, it is a fact that for many centuries Food and cooking is a deep-seated in French culture. If you grow up surrounded by people who are passionate about cooking then it is very likely that this ‘passion’ will rub off on you. If you are interested in science and also belong to the right culture, then it seems obvious that you might go down the path of Food Science/ Molecular Gastronomy.
5) Brillat-Savarin defined gastronomy as “the reasoned study of all that is related as man nourishes himself”. Does this definition carry the same weight as it did in 1825?
Unfortunately, many people don't know this meaning (the right one!), and this is why I am popularizing actively the right defintion. The same goes for many other words. ‘Gourmet’, for example, comes from the French term for a wine broker – or ‘taste-vin’. The job of a ‘gourmet’ involves tasting and buying wine on behalf of merchants and dealers. So, the meaning of ‘gourmet’ is a real one for wine, but it has changed slightly. The same goes for the word ‘gastronomy’.
6) As you know, in 1969, Professor Nicholas Kurti gave a presentation entitled ‘The Physicist in the Kitchen’ which was recorded by the BBC. Why do you think it took nearly 20 years after this took place for the discipline of ‘Molecular Gastronomy’ to be coined? Why do you think progress was so slow?
I think there are two reasons for this. Firstly, Nicholas was a physicist and many of his ideas were centred on bringing physics into the kitchen –such as using really low temperatures and vacuums to create novel dishes. By the way, this is technology, and not science. When I first met him in 1986, I was interested in proving/ disproving old wives tales and culinary dictums., and also to modernize culinary processes, using tools which are present in chemistry laboratories. So, our ideas were different, but complimentary. We had a lot of fun together and agreed that it would be a good idea if other people like Ugo and Beatrice Palma (Italy), Harold McGee (a science writer in the USA) or Peter Barham (UK) could join in with our work.
7) In the 1980s, Food Science was primarily engaged with analysing the contents and properties of food, the nutritional demands of our bodies and industrial scale food production. How is an understanding of the ‘physics and chemistry of culinary transformations’ more relevant to everyday life than understanding these concepts?
If you make a soufflé, it has nothing to do with industrial scale food production because soufflés cannot be made on an industrial scale. Therefore, for all fresh products the industrial processes are irrelevant. The everyday person cooks food on barbeque - which results in food containing benzopyrens. We don’t really care about the everyday person!
8) Clearly, a lot has changed since then and in your PhD dissertation (that you presented in 1996), you stated that molecular gastronomy had five aims: (to collect and investigate old wives’ tales about cooking; to model and scrutinize existing recipes; to introduce new tools, products and methods to cooking; to invent ‘new’ dishes using knowledge from the previous aims; and to use the appeal of food to promote science). How have these changed over the past 15 years?
Yes, a lot has changed. The original aims were wrong and the programme is clearer now. There is greater distinction between ‘molecular cooking’ and ‘molecular gastronomy’ and technology and new tools are found in kitchens! What has changed? There are now many groups working in the field of molecular gastronomy all around the world and people are more aware of it.
9) Indeed, your recent ‘reformulation’ of molecular gastronomy states that the scientific programme now seeks to explore scientifically the following components of cooking: (a) the technical; (b) the artistic; and (c) the social parts. In your opinion, do all three components carry equal weight or is one more important than the others?
Personally, I think that the social component of cooking is much more important than the others- but of course, it is more difficult to study! This is what I should be focusing on but it is more complicated than the technical aspects. The ‘art’ of cooking is also a difficult aspect to study.
10) One of the ways in which you explore the ‘technical components’ of culinary transformations is by proving/ disproving ‘culinary dictums’. Out of your collection of over 25,000 of these, which one has proved to be the most surprising and why?
All of them are surprising! My recently published book - ‘Cours de Gastronomie Moléculaire:Les precisions culinaires’ - explores many of these dictums in detail, but also tries to make a method for this exploration, and proposes new ways of research in this direction.
11) The ‘sensory phenomena associated with consumption’ is another area of study that molecular gastronomy encompasses. How important is research into human perception of taste in order to ‘scientifically’ perfect the enjoyment of food?
The word ‘flavour’ should probably be used instead of ‘taste’; flavour is the overall sensation. This is a big question: you are proposing to scientifically perfect the enjoyment of food. Peter Barham and Harold McGee have ideas similar to these and they aren’t really scientific because you cannot scientifically perfect the enjoyment of food. Science, I repeat, is looking for the mechanisms of phenomena, not applying new scientific results.
Moreover there is the question of the difference between sensory physiology (a part of food science) and molecular gastronomy. We should not be new Napoleons, and molecular gastronomy is not all food science, but only part of it. Indeed sensory physiology exists already, and this is not molecular gastronomy, but sensory physiology. On the other hand, molecular gastronomy can investigate "some" sensory phenomena
12) The concept of molecular gastronomy has attracted a lot of media coverage- especially for the chefs who collaborated with you. Has this changed the original focus and aims of the discipline?
Absolutely not. For the work done daily at the lab, I do not care with chefs, because I have already more than 25,000 precisions and a lot of scientific questions to answer! And when the new programme of molecular gastronomy, being separated from molecular cooking, it was even more than before a way of being away from chefs. I have the feeling that science is more useful when it does not a priori considers the particular technical or technological demands; let's do that later, or let engineers or technologists do it, as it is their job.
13) Do you think the media portray the work of some chefs as ‘molecular gastronomy’?
The media coverage has forced me to correct mistakes, but that is all. Nothing has changed for the practise of science – the original focus and aims of the discipline haven’t changed. Molecular gastronomy is the job of scientists, and cooking is the job of chefs.
14) Indeed, many of the world’s top chefs make use of, and say they have been ‘inspired’ by molecular gastronomy. How is the scientific exploration of food important to them?
In general, the scientific exploration of the food they work with is not of great importance to them. However, the application of scientific knowledge is. And remember that behing all these questions, there is a question of "communication", media, fame, etc.!
15) Several chefs are involved in projects such as the Erice Workshops and the European technology transfer programme, INICON. (These involve collaborations between chefs, scientists, companies and culinary schools). What have these events achieved for molecular gastronomy?
These events have done nothing for molecular gastronomy, except in terms of the communication of ideas. My thinking when asked to assist with INICON was – if I have to travel to contribute to the work of Heston (Blumenthal) and Ferran (Adria), then why not? But really, looking back on it was a waste of time, from the scientific point of view.
16) In 2006, Heston Blumenthal was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree from The University of Reading. Does this undermine the work of ‘true’/’pure’ scientists?
It upsets me that Heston Blumenthal is not a scientist and he was awarded such an accolade. I think it was a bad idea, a very bad idea. I am not saying that Heston is a bad guy, on the contrary, but I am saying that I don't understand why he was awarded this degree. In Belgium, Pierre Gagnaire was made doctor honoris causa of the university of Liege... but not in science : in cooking, and this is more right!
17) What has been the biggest influence in contributing to the “rapid spread of the discipline amongst scientists and chefs alike” to which you refer to in your article Food for Tomorrow?
Energy and lectures. Since 2000, I have gone to a different country every three months to explain and introduce the concept of molecular gastronomy. I have been to Greece, Turkey, Germany, USA, Brazil, Argentina – to name but a few! And now there are groups in all of these countries. Very recently a Molecular Gastronomy Unit opened in Lebanon.
18) Do you think that in the different countries that you go to you get a different response/ reception to your ideas and presentations?
Yes, definitely. For example, after I left Canada, they told me they were going to organise various seminars and workshops. Two years later, I was invited to return and nothing had changed – nothing had been organised! So I tried again, and when I left they told me the same thing but they still did nothing. In Brazil, they held two or three seminars but then they dropped them... and more recently the university of Sao Paulo appointed a full time professor of Molecular Gastronmy, like in Denmark, Finland, etc.
19) How can decades of research on nutrition along with an understanding of culinary transformations help to influence future generations?
This depends very much on the country concerned. Clearly, it is impossible to influence all people of all ages in the general population. Intelligent programmes in schools must therefore be organised which are linked to culture, science, literature, geography, history etc. and cooking must be at the centre. In France, if things continue the way they are, it will take 50 years before something new has to be done. The Ministry for Education is very powerful in France and all the lycées are linked.
20) In several of your books you mention ‘note-by-note’ cooking and ‘culinary constructivism’ as being successors of the ‘already dead’ molecular cuisine. How will these disciplines help to shape the culinary landscape in the future?
Culinary constructivism is too difficult, so note-by-note cooking would be best. Note-by-note cooking will help to shape the culinary landscape exactly as molecular cooking did. The media will also play a pivotal role: if they portray note-by-note cooking as a ‘new’ concept, the public will go to restaurants serving such food.
And I am very happy to tell you that we are now on the right track. In the last six months, many "note by note" events were organized, with a lot of interest. Perhaps will it be there faster than I thought (but I decided to be active, and to try intelligently to promote it).
21) In your article, Food for Tomorrow (EMBO reports (2006) 7, 1062 – 1066), you mentioned that the scientific programme of molecular gastronomy can be useful to ‘convince society to regard eating as a pleasure rather than a necessity’. Could you tell me more about this?
It is a necessity. However, sometimes if you have the feeling it is a necessity it is boring! If it is culture, then it becomes important. We are human beings, not beasts, and we need culture! So, in my opinion, culture is of greater importance than necessity. Of course people have to go to the loo, eat, drink etc. but if we want to be human beings, we need to transform a necessity into culture.
22) So, essentially it can be both, however, pleasure is more important?
‘Pleasure’ isn’t the right word. Perhaps it’s part of culture? Yes, as part of culture.
23) In order to model culinary transformations, comparisons of food before and after the physiochemical transformation must be made. What are the current ‘cutting-edge’ techniques that you and your research teams are using to do this?
Consider a culinary transformation; then there are various phenomena that occur from the original ingredients to the final dish. When I am studying a particular phenomenon, I always try and select the special scientific technique best suited to study it. You should never (indeed, I am not guru: do what you want) use a particular technique for analysing a transformation just because you have use of the equipment. You should select the technique on its suitability alone. In the labs we probably use NMR spectroscopy too much, for example, and recently I forgot to use fluorescence spectroscopy, that I love because it is very sensitive and specific (celebrate spectroscopy in general, as it is based on the sound idea of resonance!).
24) What is your opinion of the various multinational corporations who carry out experiments to create ‘synthetic food’? When must an experiment end? Is it normal for a ‘chef’ to sell an experiment?
Firstly, synthetic foods do not exist. From the culinary point of view, if a certain food gives someone pleasure, that’s fine! But the ethics of producing foods are probably important. With GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) the real issue is not toxicology, the real issue is actually politics. There are many people who say that they don’t want GM products because they say that farmers won’t be able to control and manage their own crops anymore. So, as you can see, this concerns politics.
The main question, about "synthetic", is to understand what it means really. Something is synthetic when it is synthetized. But do you mean "all compounds from this food are synthetized", or "the food is not restricted to one piece of plant or animal tissue"? Let's clarify first.
Take, 1-octen-3-ol, for example. It has a wonderful mushroom/forest taste- sous bois we call it. Its smell is a cross between that of mushrooms and forests, and it is very simple and very cheap to buy. I use it at home to cook with and add it to soups and other dishes to enhance the flavour. If using 1-octen-3-ol makes for a more pleasurable, enjoyable dish, then I don’t care if it is a synthetic or naturally extracted ingredient. From a nutrition point of view, as long as the molecule isn’t toxic, I am happy.
When you cook foods using a barbeque, it ends up containing 200 times more benzopyrens than the legal limit. So, should we really care about what is happening in the industry when we are doing much worse? One of the steps in the process of sugar production is carbonatation. This involves the use of hot milk of lime (a suspension of calcium hydroxide in water) to remove impurities. The public don’t care about this!
25) Finally, if you hadn’t been drawn to the science of cooking and culinary transformations, what area of research do you think you would have gone into and why?
When I was in my last year at ESPCI ParisTech (École Supérieure de Physique et de Chimie Industrielles de la Ville de Paris) one of my friends showed me an advert he’d seen from the director of Pour La Science (the French version of Scientific American). He was looking for an editor for the magazine and my friend thought I would be interested. I found there a wonderful first job, and I remained there for 20 years. However, at the same time I was doing Molecular Gastronomy in my own lab until 1995, when Jean-Marie Lehn offered me to make my researches at the College de France.
However, for a very young age, I wanted to do organic chemistry... and daily, when I am at the lab at AgroParisTech, I can see a tree, with leaves, and, having been an intimate friend of Pierre Potier (the father of Taxotere, anticancer drug, and others drugs), I am tempted by the chemistry of natural products. I cannot probably move, because I have to develop molecular gastronomy, but I know that we could usefully link it to toxicology, for example, and why not pharmacy. After all, every piece of food is full of very bioactive compounds, and we could probably use them smartly for the good of humankind.
Your most marked characteristic?
I never answer questions correctly, because I am always trying to understand what is really the matter.
For example, here, you have ”characteristic” : do you mean intellectual? Physical? Genetic (= chemical composition) ?
If you mean physical, I don't know, because I don't have time for looking at myself. If you mean genetic, I don't know. If you mean intellectual, then it is more interesting, but I don't care being, or having been : I am interested in what I shall do next. And I have the feeling that if you work harolivier hd and smartly enough, you can do what you want, be what you want. The French chemist Michel Eugène Chevreul said ”You should try to reach perfection without pretending that you will get it, and with a lot of efforts.
Finally, this question reminds me of my sons, years ago, when they proposed me to choose between raspberries and blackcurrants. My answer was: I prefer both of them, plus all the others. About characteristics ? I have a collection of sentences on the walls of my laboratory, such as ”The summum of intelligence is honesty and kindness”, or ”Maths save you always”, or ”The devil is hidden behing any experiment, any calculation”, or ” No God nor master”, or... dozens...
The quality you most like in a man?
Again, intelligence... if it means honesty and kindness, which involves working hard with intellectual values.
The quality you most like in a woman?
The same, why should they be different ?
What do you most value in your friends?
The same as before, of course. But also, I know that I am developing those days the concept of ”beautiful person”, which means (of course) only a beautiful mind. And it is true that some (rare) people surprise me each time I see them. Pierre Gagnaire is one of them, with Jean Marie Lehn, and my father. I know them quite well, or even very well... but I am surprised at any discussion. Surprised : I mean, entirely surprised, to the point that I would never have guessed of what they tell me. I love this idea of no intellectual confort !
What is your principle defect?
Ask my friends, but I have the feeling that I am lazy (in spite of working 105 hrs/week and never having holidays). Or not intelligent enough ?
What is your favorite occupation?
Chemistry, and intellectual fights for a better word.
What is your dream of happiness?
I don't dream of happiness: I am happy !
What to your mind would be the greatest of misfortunes?
Never considered the question. And I refuse to do it. Think rather of a brilliant future.
What would you like to be?
Nothing except myself.
In what country would you like to live?
Alsace... and I do it.
What is your favorite color?
Blue, but a special hue. This is silly of myself of preferring a particular color: life needs all of them ! And remember the wonderful red of Rubens, some beautiful green of the beginning of spring, the colors of Indian summer in Canada, the ”color” of running water...
And the color of an egg cooked at 68°C !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Indeed, in this case, we have a wonderful demonstration that ”color does not exist”, which mean that color has to be appreciated in a context. The most beautiful color on the worst object (Hitler) would be awful, but the ”ugliest color” on the woman I love would be fascinating.
What is your favorite flower?
The one that I have right now and here. Indeed I could also have answered that I love variety, but this would have been the same answer as before. Indeed, I should also add that I don't care about flowers, or art, or cuisine, or... My pleasure is to do something ! And more particularly to ”grow flowers”, to ”build flowers”, to understand the mysteries of the color and odors of flowers. It's crazy that we are sending probes toward Mars, but at the same time, we cannot predict the odor of a mix of limonene, sotolon and 1-octen-3-ol !
What is your favorite bird?
Do bird exists? Yes, quails, pheasants, and other games. But again, it all depend on how they are cooked, by who, for who, in which circumstances ? You see, science is asking more questions than giving answers, because how can you give theories knowing that they are wrong. Contrary to what is sometimes said: science is not demonstrating anything, but instead refuting wrong (or insufficient) theories.
Who are your favorite prose writers?
Certainly François Rabelais. For decades, it was Gustave Flaubert, with his marvellous ”Temptation of Saint Antoine”, but I realized later that if Flaubert was writing a spoken written prose, Rabelais was doing written spoken written prose.
But for some years, I am trying not to read any longer, but rather write. I have so many books in preparation !
Who are your favoite poets?
I love Beaudelaire... but indeed, I don't have time for that. It was only when I was a teenager. Now, chemistry is over everything. And calculation is such a wonderful poetry! I am sad that so few people can understand how wonderful it is to calculate ! Much better than eating, or even cooking !
Who is your favorite hero of fiction?
What is the noise of a tree falling in a forest where there is nobody to hear ? I don't care about fiction. Real life is so wonderful, when you are a chemist, that there is no need to go out of it.
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
Idem
Who are your favorite composers?
I definitely hate this question. Because I love Bach, but when I have heard too much of it, I prefer Satie, or Debussy, or Mozart... Indeed, I want all of them. By the way, this reminds me of the ”ranking of the best chefs of the world” : this is nonsense, and I hate this ranking, because democracy has nothing to say about 2+2, first, and also because I don't care about the opinion of others, as a matter of taste (only mine is important!).
Please help me to fight this awful ranking, this poor thing that makes Ferran, or Heston, or René higher than Pierre Gagnaire. This is simply silly (and there is so much politics behing!!!!)
Who are your favorite painters?
Too many of them, from Rembrand, Rubens, Delacroix, Zao wu ki, Shitao... But again, I don't have time for that. I don”t want to be good in painting, so that it is perhaps (perhaps only) a mistake to spend much time on that... except that I did it with pleasure when I was writing my best book, Cooking, a quintessential art (French title: Cuisine, it's first love, then art, then technique).
Who are your heroes in real life?
Hero? Does it exist ?
Anyway, I would say that there were wonderful scientists in the past. For a long time I was a fan of Michael Faraday, one of the greatest physical chemist of history, but Lavoiser is wonderful, as well as Henri Poincaré, Charles Adolphe Würtz, etc. The idea is that these people pushed away the limits of knowledge. They made mistakes... but they moved further than their contemporaries. This is a lesson: try to work hard in order to be useful to humankind.
Who are your favorite heroines of history?
Heroine ? Gender does not matter.
What are your favorite names?
?
What is it you most dislike?
I hate to hate. I prefer loving, because it enlightens your heart. Hate, dislike is making you full of bad feelings. I have a rule, that I introduced at the lab : when you say something bad about someone, you have immediately to say something fine about three people.
What historical figures do you most despise?
Please, do not put me in mud. I long for the sun and the blue sky!
What event in military history do you most admire?
Military, wars ? You're kidding : how could I admire people killing others, generally for power or money ? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What reform do you most admire?
The abolition of slavery
What natural gift would you most like to possess?
I hate the idea of ”natural gifts” and ”genius”. I want to work hard to be able to achieve what is important to do. In my lab, I displayed a big poster : ”D'r Schaffe het sussi Wurzel un Frucht” (work has sweet roots and fruits). Another one demonstrates how to be in advance if you word hard. Another tells you : ”someone who knows is someone who learned”, etc.
How would you like to die?
Never!
What is your present state of mind?
Perfect happiness, with a great desire for useful achivement. For example, I am working hard to be a better scientist tomorrow than I am today, and I am also activitely promoting ”Note by Note Cuisine”, because I know that this new move is so important for culinary art as well as for humankind. There are many questions behind. And questions are promises for answers. We have to be happy with questions rather than with answers.
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
When people are strict because they worked hard to improve.
What is your motto?
I have list of about three dozens, and I gove you one of the best: the summum of intelligence is honesty and kindness.
# In an answer to a question on your website about DSFs, you mention that dimension "does not mean size, but the number of parameters that you need to describe a system." You give mayonnaise as an example: D0(O)/D3(W). Why does the oil occupy 0 dimensions as opposed to the liquid water phase that occupies 3? What are the parameters pertaining to a given phase?
#
# The dimension is indeed the traditional mathematical object. A dot has dimension zero, a line dimension one, a surface dimension two, a volume a dimension 3, and there can be non integer dimensions, such as for fractals.
# In a mayonnaise : the sauce itself is certainly 3 dimensional. The continuous phase is water (W), which means that the sauce formula begins with D3(W°. Now, if you look at it, you see that there are oil droplets are dispersed in the water phase. But the oil droplets are "physically" of dimension 0, because they are more than one order of magnitude smaller than the reference size, i.e. the radius of the sauce. And these droplets D0(O) are randomly dispersed in the water sauce, hence the formula.
#
# Given a random dispersion system formula, how would you go about interpreting that into a physical manifestation (a dish)? How do you interpret each operation––specifically inclusion, superstition, and intermixing?
# I don't understand the question. Can you explain what you mean ?
#
#
# As a study of the science regarding cuisine, what distinguishes the molecular gastronomy from the scientific field of food science?
# This is very clear, and there are obviously historical reasons. If you look to any Food Science textbook, such as the Food Chemistry (Springer), you will never see "real food", such as coq of vin, poisson braisé, etc. The only topics being discussed are food ingredients, or food processes of the industry. See this explained in more details in my article of the Accounts of chemical research.
#
# Did the Futurist Ideology regarding future food consumption (as Marinetti predicted in the Cucina Futurista) inspire your concept of Note-by-Note cooking in anyway? How did your work in the fields of food science and molecular gastronomy influence this idea?
# No. I don't have time for this. The idea of note by note cooking is explained in my book on the topic.
# By the way, in some posts of my blogs you will see that there could be more, such as injecting sensations into the brain, without eating physically. This is very exciting, but I shall not work on it.
# And I don't understand clearly the second question here.
#
# In many of your lecture demonstrations, you use flavor compounds in powder form. What are the processes of extracting flavor or odor molecules from ingredients––like basil, or olive oil for example? Are there any methods that can be used at home with basic supplies?
# Compounds responsible for taste or odor, or trigeminal can be solid or liquid (for gases, the amount of material is too small).
# the process of extracting? It depends on the particular compounds. Some can be recovered by distillation, other by membrane filtration, etc.
# At home ? Who would you mind extracting at home, as you don't do it for sugar or salt ? Of course, you can if you have the equipment, but supercritical CO2 is expansive. Rotary evaporators are now in some kitchens.
#
# Seeing that you have greatly impacted the development of molecular gastronomy/cuisine/Note-by-Note cooking, why don’t you consider yourself a chef?
# Why I don't consider myself a chef ? Because a chef cooks professionnally. If I would open a restaurant, I am quite sure that I would get one or two Michelin stars, but I also know that I am a dwarf, artistically, compared to my friend Pierre Gagnaire. I am no artist, even if my technique is probably better than the technique of all chefs (remember one invention per month for more than 15 years, and I can make 40 liters of whipped egg white from one egg). I cook daily for my family since I am 6
# BUT
# I am not interested in all this. My life is physical chemistry, equations, science, enlarging the realm of knowledge, of scientific knowledge. For me, technique and technology (even my own inventions) are nil ! My only proudness are some scientific results that I was able to get. My job, for which I am paid, is physical chemistry... and now that I answered, I am coming back VERY FAST to my equations and calculations.
#
#
February 2020
1. Do you expect note by note cuisine to become the standard for cooking? if so, what benefits can it provide and if not, what are the barriers that prevent it from becoming widely used and how can these be overcome?
I don't have crystal ball, but I am sure that part of the proposal will be implemented, and this more or less the case more and more today.
Indeed, for the future, nobody knows, but if you consider the growth of the human population, you can be sure that NbN will be helpful. Indeed big companies are already focusing on plant proteins... but when you have them, what do you do with them? NbN !
Of course, one should distinguish pure NbN and practical NbN, for which you admit to use oil (a mixture of triglycerides) or corn starch (impure amylopectin). But the idea is here.
And from an art point of view, yes, NbN is the sole new proposal today.
2. How can the study of molecular gastronomy be used to make foods healthier? Do you believe that a better understanding of food would allow for foods to be made healthier without compromising on flavor?
The answer is clear: you have to understand what you do to do it safer. Tradition is no garantee... and the demonstration is that our ancestors died ;-).
Indeed, understand the composition of food, you can then cook using only safe ingredients (compounds for NbN).
3. How practical are the applications of molecular gastronomy? I was very interested in your chapter on the taste of cold and how different temperatures could create different tastes but it seems difficult to apply this to the creation of a dish.
Look please at the internet site of Pierre Gagnaire : I am proposing one invention per month for 20 years. This is very practical !
4. How can chefs combat neophobia? With all of the innovations in cooking, the creation of new and better dishes in inevitable, however, the fear of trying new foods holds back many people from discovering new dishes.
The strategy is Parmentier's : just give the new dishes to kings, and the people will want it. This is how I introduced Molecular Cooking, and how I am pushing forward NbN
Historical background of molecular gastronomy which widely spread around the world.
A journalist submitted to me the following sentence : "In early 1990, Professor Herve THIS and Professor Nicholas KURT embarked on culinary science research, funded by the European Union (EU) with Chef Ferran Adrià of El Bulli and Chef Heston Blumenthal of The Fat Duck."
THIS IS ENTIRELY WRONG
Indeed, we (Nicholas Kurti and Hervé This) created Molecular and Physical Gastronomy in 1989 (but our research was much before.
We decided to create international workshops together, and the first one occurred in 1992.
Some chefs were invited but Ferran began using molecular cooking only in 1994, and Heston Blumenthal even later.
Personnally, I invited Heston and Ferran to a European program (Innicon) which was created around me in 2000 (much later, then). And here, the idea was to transfer our scientific results to chefs (Ferran, Heston, but also Emile Jung and Christian Conticini, plus a German chef). There were meetings during which I explained to chefs how to use new hardware. And I had even a student of mine (Rachel Edwards-Stuart) helping them practically.
If you want more, see : https://sites.google.com/site/travauxdehervethis/herv%C3%A9-this-vo-kientza-vive-la-chimie/5-et-plus-encore/pour-en-savoir-plus/questions-et-r%C3%A9ponses/histoire-de-la-gastronomie-mol%C3%A9culaire?authuser=0
What is your opinion of the role of Chef Ferran Adrià of El Bulli and Chef Heston Blumenthal of The Fat Duck with regards to your research field?
It’s nil. The fact is that we went the other way, from science to cooking, and not from cooking to science. In other words, molecular cooking is a result of molecular and physical gastronomy